Boring lineup, Lack of recent innovation, poor repairability and a CEO who has alienated people on both sides of the political isle. The 1 trillion dollar package the board is offering Musk is a joke. They need to find a new CEO.
They were coasting for a while on false promises of self-driving abilities by "the end of this year" every year and consumers have finally caught on that Tesla's not trustworthy about such claims.
And their recent updates have made basic autopilot frustrating to use. Their reliance on only camera and map data is really showing how much Elon actually knows about self driving reliability.
Heck, the backup cross traffic detection only alerts when a car or pedestrian is already crossed and out of view. It’s absurdly bad.
I've generally advocated ignoring Musk, but it's impossible to defend him in good faith as a reasonable figurehead for a multinational company. His X page in particular portrays a man who cares deeply about 4chan/pol politics and very little about his car company.
If he cared at all, you'd see a better repair process with them. There is a Tesla repair hub in Calgary where I live, and I had to wait 5 weeks for them to see my car (including an un-explained situation where they bumped me, despite me being concerned about a safety issue). I eventually took it to an EV repair shop who did it for half of what Tesla quoted because, FFS, the world's most valuable auto company is "Resource Constrained" with mechanics.
Seriously, how can they afford a trillion on a CEO when they are parking expensive Cybertrucks on the front lawn of their Calgary store?
I still love driving my car (a 2019 Model 3), but I have no faith that Tesla will actually improve on it with their current leadership structure.
Unlike Tesla, legacy OEMs are prohibited from owning dealerships in the US. They make the same (or more) money selling the parts to an independent shop. They only lose out on things like certification / training / diagnostic equipment with third party shops that don't buy everything the way a dealership is required to.
The relationship between dealerships and OEMs is complicated, incestuous and fundamentally adversarial.
Tesla are also prohibited from running OEM dealerships by most states.
That they went with online sales only was an incredibly smart move and they cut out an unwanted middleman. I’ve been following Tesla for a long time. I made a small fortune investing in them in 2012.
The folks at Tesla Motor Club were very happy to buy directly from Tesla.
The price was not the issue, the fact that they took 5 weeks for a potential safety issue was. (In my case, it turns out that the issue was related to a torn bushing in the suspension; a common issue with a Model 3 w/ more than 100k kilometers apparently).
The fact that they took longer AND were more expensive than local providers was ridiculous, and certainly not a good look compared to my experiences at Toyota with my Sienna.
-edit- (That and the fact that they shouldn't be resource constrained when the most valuable car company in the world)
I low key have a conspiracy theory that the "1 trillion dollar pay package" is just Tesla PR fluff - smoke and mirrors to steal attention away from the poorly performing cybertruck sales and falling stock. If they spin news with dramatic flair highlighting Musk’s bonkers pay package it's a distraction from Tesla’s more immediate and tangible troubles, political alienation of their buyers and ongoing regulatory and manufacturing operational crises.
I think it's a desperate attempt by the board to get Musk to focus on Tesla again. Tesla has a PE ratio of around 230 right now. If that comes back down to the reality of a declining-sales mid-sized car company, it's going to be an absolute blood bath.
The first thing I thought of when I saw that pay package being floated was the current state that Tesla is in. That's the primary reason such a package seems so fucking bonkers.
A pay package of that magnitude is a material business fact. If Tesla is lying about this, that would likely constitute securities fraud and risks imprisonment for the people involved in making it.
The company that had to pay out $20 million (in addition to Musk paying another $20 million) to settle with the SEC after being accused of securities fraud in 2018, and whose owner has just been accused of another instance of securities fraud by the SEC this year may, in fact, be engaging in securities fraud here?
Tesla was not first to market for keyless entry, 360 cameras, nor level 2 ADAS. In fact, they are behind. A couple of automakers are now shipping level 3 ADS systems.
I’ve recently test-driven EVs from a few brands, including Tesla. One stood out for building an EV that actually felt like a functioning car: Kia. It actually has buttons for things that are commonly adjusted while driving. The current crop of Teslas don’t even have physical controls for reverse.
> And the repairability thing is a meme from back when they had part production lag due to crazy scaling.
Respectfully, bullshit; auto insurance companies I've dealt with certainly begged to differ, and have priced comprehensive/collision premiums for Teslas accordingly.
I don't know why you're getting junked. A friend's Model Y was rear-ended, and he had it fixed in less than two weeks. Did have a sensor problem afterwards, but that was taken care of immediately. I think you're accurate that they are still ahead of the competition, but the race is getting closer.
Political issues aside, Tesla has a variety problem. If we converge the split between midrange and premium, their lineup consists of a midsize sedan, a midsize SUV, and a niche truck.
Early on this was in their favor, but with more automakers entering the fray with serious attempts to compete, they’re going to have to add at least a couple more models to reman competitive: something in the vein of a Chevy Bolt on one end and an SUV that’s the next step up in size from the Y/X on the other. A more conventional truck that more directly competes with the F-150 also couldn’t hurt.
Again, politics aside, I just find the lineup boring. Every model outside the Cybertruck looks like a ten year old car. Even the refresh of the model Y is still reskinning a design language started with the Model S, but with any interesting soul stripped out to reduce cost.
The nerd in me loves the technology, particularly behind the scenes features of the Cybertruck like 48v architecture. In the end I want to drive something that feels like it has a soul and substance. Teslas lineup right now is not that.
If Teslas were durable, built well, easily repairable, with strong aftermarket support, I would applaud them for sticking with the same bland design instead of endlessly tweaking it like every other car and tech company in a misguided effort to stay "fresh". However the opposite has occurred where Teslas appear to be bland, poorly made, and unrepairable.
OTOH, Cybertruck is one of the only original car designs in modern memory. It’s dumb as hell, but I like it. That said, I have no idea who it’s for, I wouldn’t buy one. But I respect them for designing such a ridiculous vehicle, and for it actually being able to sell, albeit somewhat poorly compared to expectations.
I say all of this as a recent $TSLA bear with a healthy short position.
shorting TSLA is never smart because TSLA investors are not driven by any rhyme or reason. Elon is the greatest salesman to ever live and people have been buying his sh*t for decade+ now. if TSLA was a reasonable company investment-wise I would mortgage my house to short the shit out of it :)
Yeah -- I am of the opinion that TSLA is rather obviously highly overvalued, but the market can stay insane for longer than I can stay solvent so there isn't anything I can do to act on that.
Yep, that’s why I clarified that I am a recent bear. I think that in the next year funds will reevaluate them and we will see at least a 20% drop in price.
I kind of like it. It's one where the pictures and renderings look cool but IRL it looks like they messed it up. However, I've seen a few modded Cybertrucks with bigger wheels and tires and a wrap that actually make me think it doesn't look to bad. Concerns over build quality keep me away from Tesla as a whole, it looks too cheap to me and I've seen too many videos where things are just falling off.
> It's one where the pictures and renderings look cool but IRL it looks like they messed it up.
That's because they did. The initial plan was for the plates to double as the frame of the car. That's how they could have achieved the seamless look of the renders. Turns out they couldn't make it work for whatever reason and the plates are just on top of the frame.
But I know what you're saying. I give it credit for being out there when nothing else in the auto industry is. Sadly though, its failure will likely further entrench the rest of the industry.
Electric does make it pretty important that the software is unusually good for a car, though, because the software has to compensate for non-ubiquitous charging infra. Tesla does this very well. There are some quirks around charge scheduling and charge limiting that Tesla does really well too. It's not rocket science but software in most "current cars" is terrible.
With every insane X post Musk makes we get closer to where having Tesla on your resume is a black mark the same way folks are judging Meta employees in the other thread.
When the politics are that front and center, it becomes a real liability to the company.
My wife thinks they all look like jellybeans. Tesla makes them like that to maximize efficiency, and they’re still #1 on that metric, but people don’t care about that.
My understanding is that the Lucid Air Pure is more efficient than Tesla’s offerings, but yes, Teslas have tended to be more efficient than compliance BEVs and a lot of other efforts from legacy automakers.
Interesting. I can't see the source for the data in your link (it cites Statista, but that's just a graph and requires a subscription to see the source data.)
Not saying it's wrong (I have no idea, that's why I googled), but would be interesting to know.
edit: but also, you're right that I inadvertently looked at US-only data. I did say it was a quick Google. :) Edited my original comment.
I think the target audience for a Toyota or Honda (boring but reliable car) isn't very interested in the kind of quality control Tesla has. They're supposed to make up for that in other features and the unique style of the truck is part of that, in theory.
IMHO, Toyota did an awesome job of taking the 2004 Prius funny wedge compact eco-nerd-mobile look (which might have been exactly what it needed at the time), and making it look sleek and modern and powerful.
I'm imagining a designer looking at the earlier windshield slant, and knowing they could work with that, and retain references to the iconic earlier design.
The people I see with Model 3 and Y are the ones who came from Camrys and Rav4.
Tesla EVs have the most data to support their reliability (at least the 3/Y), and they are clearly very reliable. Plus it costs just as much as a Rav 4, but has tons more torque. And the software is much better even though it lacks Carplay.
I don't know why we're putting politics aside. I'm sure those political escapades didn't help in cratering their stock.
All companies are trying to cut on variety right now. Of course, a software service used daily won't be hit as hard as a mid-class car company. Heck, even the affordable car companies are charging mid tier prices these days. The results are clear if things don't change.
I agree and actually think it’s the overwhelming factor. People loved Tesla and Musk until he started promoting his politics. It was a stupid thing to do as a CEO, especially for a company whose customers tend toward the opposite end of the political spectrum.
We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss. You're either cool with it, or Tesla is completely off the table. And nobody will likely be switching camps at this point.
Can someone be cool with it but also admit that it definitely affected the market share? I can do that with Bud Weiser's trans campaign, even if I agree with it.
They had no trans campaing. There was a single short video with a single personalized can. Calling it campaign is just validating conservative lies again.
Truth is, a single trans got a can of beer with own face, made short video and rught wing decided to make it into a campaing, because trans must be destroyed. That is it.
> We're putting aside the political stuff because there isn't a lot to discuss
I don't agree, as we are not quantifying the emotional aspect of the purchasing process. If people "love" the brand, they are willing to overlook a lot of things. Tesla was a status symbol and is now seen as a regret purchase and a toxic brand for many (see Europe and Canada for examples). I can't see how "politics" should not be considered as it does play a critical role in how people spend money. There is a reason why a lot of companies are not open about politics and I don't think I've ever seen a CEO that was so forth coming with their beliefs as Elon Musk.
They haven’t released anything decent since the Model 3, which was a massive success. It’s baffling to me that they’re now betting the company on robotics, rather than improving and extending their existing lineup of cars.
I’m waiting for owners to discover water damage in the equipment under the hood liner: Cybertruck’s lack a scuttle/cowl/gutter [0] to collect and divert water from the bottom of the windshield. Basically every car ever has one, except the Cybertruck. This isn’t a QC problem — it’s just poor design.
they are not betting the company on robotics, they just needed something to keep the crazies buying stock now that full “self” driving fantasy is over :)
The Model Y is an incredible car, way more than decent. Unfortunately Elon is a fascist traitor so I cannot upgrade it, and no one else makes anything half as good.
I thought the Rav4 had been outpacing it for awhile now. (Plus, that's also artificially limiting total vehicle sales which are, unsurprisingly, still trucks.)
> Tesla has a variety problem. If we converge the split between midrange and premium, their lineup consists of a midsize sedan, a midsize SUV, and a niche truck
I don’t know if you have checked out other OEMs lineups lately…Ford doesn’t even make a sedan anymore. That’s right. Just SUVs and trucks. And mustang supercar. Other OEMs have similarly trimmed their lineups. You can thank CAFE er al for that.
Does it? Since they stopped building the Mondeo in Europe they don’t sell any sedans there or in most places I’m aware of. The only Ford sedan I’m aware of in production anywhere is the Chinese-market Ford Mondeo built in a joint venture with Changan.
Somewhat, but I'll blame business finance way, way, way more.
The US automakers are doing the exact same dumbass thing they did in the 1970s with "BIGGER!-shouted (and more profitable)-whispered" until the Japanese automakers showed up and wiped the floor with them.
Well, BYD is coming and is going to wipe the floor with them.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
It’s amazing that US automakers can’t foresee the bubble of $70k SUVs and trucks and the stretched out loans those entail popping. It’s practically guaranteed to happen, and with how the economy has been probably sooner than later.
But yes, I fully agree that deprioritizing/stopping the low-cost "Model 2" was a major mistake. Particularly with tariffs keeping Chinese EVs out, Tesla could have pretty much owned the space in the US. (Although Elon's DOGE antics would still have alienated a large portion of the customer base.)
As things stand, assuming that Nissan can manage to remain afloat, that “Model 2” market segment is going to be snapped up by the 2026 Leaf, which will start at ~$25k before incentives and is just a touch bigger than the Bolt EUV was and comes with NACS, fast charging, and a properly cooled battery. There’s little in the US EV market that comes close to competing at that price range.
Keep in mind that these things will be built in Japan and imported. I’m sure Tesla could’ve figured out some way to have an offering the same price or cheaper.
> Keep in mind that these things will be built in Japan and imported. I’m sure Tesla could’ve figured out some way to have an offering the same price or cheaper.
Seeing US salaries and the strength of the US dollar (and the weakness of the yen right now!)... I wonder.
At one point I don't know how you can be competitive with factories abroad. This is where protectionism comes in I guess!
It's a 6-seater, but I don't think it fills all of that category gap because it's barely a 6-seater.
All the other 3-rows have decent headroom in that last row. The Kia and Hyundai almost 42 inches. I haven't looked into the Cadillac or Volvo, but from the outside they look about the same.
All but the shortest adults and children will be uncomfortable in the Tesla third row. I'll bet it's used more for groceries than passengers.
To compete in the 3-row market, I think Tesla's gotta build something that can accommodate adults too.
The jump between the X and Y is too big. It’s more or less a 50-100% price increase depending on how you look at it. The Y is very small for the SUV form factor, and the X is very expensive. I have to imagine that there is a market for something between the two.
The problem is that the X isn't a particularly large SUV. The X is slightly wider and about 1ft longer.
And in many ways it's inferior to the Y. Tesla's mega casting and structural pack gives the Y excellent range and a lower weight for a cheaper battery.
I think the reason Tesla hasn't done mega casting and structural packs for the other lineups (besides the equipment costs) is because it'd make them eat into the revenue of the top tier models. A model 3 cutting down several hundred pounds would be range competitive with the model S. The shorter range LFP batteries could still land you in previously long range land.
Still the best EVs on the market in terms of range, performance and price(in the US). Chevy bolt competitor wouldn’t make sense because Chevy couldn’t even make the chevy bolt work and stopped production 2023. EV trucks don’t make sense at all, they can’t tow unless you want to recharge every 100 miles. Also range is severely reduced offroading. I don’t get why auto manufacturers keep pushing them on the public.
Tesla has image problem. Y refresh is getting praise. Edmunds says its the best car they’ve driven in 2025. It should be selling like hotcakes. I don’t think anything is fixing Tesla unless they fire musk.
The Bolt is coming back. Chevy’s reason for discontinuing it wasn’t that it didn’t sell, but that the platform was outdated. The new one is on their current platform and roughly analogous to the old EUV model.
Pricing is another question though, and no CarPlay/AA while also coming from an old guard auto manufacturer means no sale from me.
Normally when you have a popular car, you don't pull it from the market. Tesla hasn't pulled any of their products. Has a company ever done that? They sold it at a loss and now trying to make it profitable with LFP batteries and other cost cutting. I still doubt its coming out.
The bigger problem is that the Bolt would’ve been the only model on its platform, which I noted before, was outdated and not able to handle fast charging among other things.
GM stopped supporting both CarPlay and Android Auto in most of their EVs, except I think for those made by Cadillac, in effort to push customers into using the onboard infotainment where they can sell subscriptions.
I’m not sure that’s going to work out for them in the long run. Last I knew, Honda’s Prologue which is a rebadged Blazer EV and supports CarPlay/AA is outselling the Blazer.
It seems you don't have BYD in the US, except for buses? Here in Australia you see far more BYDs than Teslas by now. They're cheaper with a bit more range.
The only way I’d be interested in a Xiaomi (or any other Chinese car) is if they decided to make a Ford Panther platform lookalike that has no features dependent on phoning home to China.
For the sake of argument, why should I be more afraid of phoning home to China (a country I will probably never go to) than phoning home to the US or Canada?
If I'm making an inappropriate joke to my wife while we drive, I'd prefer the former than the later.
(Obviously, much like you I assume, I'd rather have no internet connection)
Battery tech is rapidly improving too, which will offset the hit to range that towing involves. Best to get the designs and manufacturing figured out to be ready for the day that battery tech arrives.
Lucid offers the best range of any EV. And while not really directly comparable to the Model S Plaid because it is twice the price of the Plaid—- Lucid’s Air Sapphire absolutely out performs the Plaid in every scenario. I think the days of Tesla’s dominance in the EV space are dwindling rapidly. If Lucid can get their midsized car out, at a reasonable price, I don’t see any real reason to buy a Tesla unless you just particularly fancy one. That’s not a great proposition for a company that was once considered a tech company with a huge lead over everyone else. It’s only a matter of time before the double whammy of lackluster innovation and Musk’s politics come home to roost.
Yeah, because BYD and other chinese makers are locked out.
Semi-solid state is coming for Tesla's lunch.
"Tesla has image problem." You mean the multiple nazi salutes? The "don't apologize to your past" to the AfD? Being high on something on national television? Unhinged posts on twitter? Kekius Maximus?
EVs are luxury products. You can get 90% of electification with a 50-mile-range PHEV and mitigate the charging infrastructure problem. I have a used Tesla and a PHEV, and if my PHEV only had 50 instead of the paltry 20 mile range, 100% of my daily trips would be fully electrified.
As for further examples of Musk's incompetence, there should be three different badges: Tesla, an ultra-high luxury brand that focuses on traditional cabin comfort, and a low end mass brand. They should have a minivan, station wagon, an actual large SUV, a subcompact city car, a real pickup truck, a work van, and where is the goddamn semi?
Tesla should have bought a struggling auto company for manufacturing, design, and suppliers, and used that for the low-end badge and for PHEVs. Nissan would have been perfect I would think.
Tesla should at this point have joint ventures with huge numbers of electrification avenues: construction equipment, prosumer lawn mowers, "side by sides", golf carts, ATVs, jet skis, boats, if it has an ICE motor, Tesla should be expanding into it with a good name brand.
Of course Tesla solar is moribund, the solar roof is nowhere.
And if anyone claims again that grid storage will deliver some massive sales to Tesla: any success is temporary. Grid will be won by sodium ion and other grid-specific storage chemistries that cylindrical cell manufacture won't be able to compete with.
And yet another point: Tesla's cylindrical cells were an advantage ... five years ago. It's not anymore. Sodium Ion, LFP, semi-solid state, sulfur chems, all will probably be pouch. Cylindrical is basically legacy manufacturing tech.
Musk's cozying up and inevitable fallout with Trump definitely put the EV credits in crosshairs. Probably wouldn't have survived the era of insanity, but that gravy train (1/3 of tesla's profits ... at least) is over.
Finally, let's not forget the total disaster that the dry-cathode 4680 battery cell is. Basically still vaporware, and the Chinese manufacturers have better tech already in manufacture.
AND YET, I'm sure the stock will go up based on the bad news.
Tesla sales growth was already slowing day significantly before Musk showed who he really is to the wider public. There was no way they were hitting their announced target - they were supposedly going to do +50% each year until 2030, and end up selling 20M cars / year. They dropped this prediction in 2024, before 'political issues'...
No reason to focus on politics - if it wasn't elon musk nobody would care cared that it was two pathetic attempts at it, you start at 90 degree angle from your heart, not flat on your chest.
The whole EV market is growing and everyone is racing to buy one before incentives run out. The article is framed as a hit piece and even has political statements in it. But here is an exact quote from the article:
"Sales of new EVs jumped more than 24% month over month in July to 128,268, according to the Cox data, driven by the looming end of a $7,500 tax credit for EVs and attractive deals. Tesla saw sales rise 7% to 53,816, even as its market share fell."
If EVs in general rose 24% due to rushing to get in before the tax credit ends but Tesla—the largest seller—only saw a 7% bump, isn't that a failure? #2 GM had a 10+% bump. Ford had a 19%. Hyundai, Honda, Kia, and Toyota all rose 60+%. Volkswagen rose over 450%. Sure it's fine in a bubble, but they are doing worse than most other car makers.
You can only cut costs so much before you're selling the equivalent of a $50k geo metro.
When they removed the center horn and the stalks from their cars, they officially jumped the shark. But I bet they saved at least $50 per car from their costs. I still can't believe the NHTSA hasn't issued a recall.
Having owned both, I’m not even sure where to begin with how laughably inaccurate that is. We can start at functioning automatic wipers, 360 degree cameras, parking assist that actually works, a knob to control stereo volume, accurate marketing numbers for range, a dealership network that actually will fix the issue, insurance that isn’t insane, headlight brights that actually dim at an appropriate distance for oncoming traffic, cruise control that doesn’t phantom brake (slam on the brakes for no reason) traveling down the highway…
I loved driving my 3 cylinder convertible geo metro! It was the 'sport' version so you could actually hit 60 if you held the peddle down long enough but it rode like it was on rails because of how light it was!
Also has an instrument panel the driver can easily see.
I’ve driven a Model 3 and its handling and overall feel was worse than a barebones Honda Civic. I’d say a Model 3 is on par with how a low end Chrysler feels to drive.
I daily drive a Model 3 and when I rented a Honda Civic for a trip I thought it was broken with how long it took to get any speed. You're trolling regarding the Chrysler comment lol
Why are you staring at your instrument panel and not the road? The speed is just a glance at the top corner as you should be focused on driving ;)
And turns out that a small torquey engine in a car with very little mass is actually pretty fun to drive! Even if you’d prefer not to be seen doing it.
No, the horn is in the middle, the capacitive horn only steering wheel existed on early builds of the model S refresh (when plaid was first released), but after ~6 months they added the normal horn back.
"even has political statements in it" is a wild take. It would be journalistic malpractice to not mention the political context.
If your CEO bribes voters to help elect a traitorous pedophile and then personally (and illegally) cuts aid funding directly causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and all of that hurts business, that's something you have to include for context! That's some crazy stuff!
Why are you calling this a hit piece? It's literally talking about falling market share in the title, which is absolutely accurate. Even the quote you tried to use as evidence of the hit piece says as much: "Sales rise, even as market share falls".
If you follow up on the story, Tesla was cleared of all wrong doing after an investigation. Tesla did sell that number of vehicles, they just were very behind on filing for the incentives, but still within the program guidelines. Once the government announced that the incentives were running low, they filed all of their backlog at once.
I love to hate on Elon as much as the next person, but everything was above board.
I think there's something else going on there, although yes, that was the statement.
> Tesla’s head of sales for Canada, emphasized in a March 28 letter that the filings followed program guidelines, which allowed post-delivery submissions despite recommendations for pre-delivery assessments.
but this alludes to something more:
> Despite the clearance, Tesla will still be excluded from future iZEV programs
If you read the rest of the sentence you removed the second quote from you will see why.
It isn't a mystery, the PM of Canada and several premiers have openly stated that Tesla isn't going to be eligible because Musk is Musk, and Tesla is American.
Thats already happened in China. And when you think about it, it was inevitable after battery production was figured out and scaled up, and new battery chemistries will keep either allowing for more utility or for pushing price points down. ICEs simply won’t be seen as economical by 2035.
People are tripping over each other to pay $60k for suvs and trucks. There’s no incentive for smaller or cheaper cars as long as people are happy paying current premium prices.
These days often on ridiculous 108 month notes. Oof. Paying $95,000 for a $70,000 truck that depreciates to $50,000 the moment you drive it off the lot and worth maybe $10K at loan maturity?
Politics aside, Musk is lying there -- or at least telling some people what they want to hear while behaving differently elsewhere .. politics aside.
Tesla's received favorable attention for it's "claim" they are (were?) working on a $30k car.
And that techno-ideological claim that "all you need for self-driving is a camera" is a cost-savings solution. [ A robotics prof, ( I think at a university in Philadelphia ? ) cites a statistic that camera based navigation will succeed 97% of the time, max. So, 3% failures over all scenarios. ]
I live in NZ. Plenty of cheap EVs. Cheapest BYD is about 24k USD. Yet Tesla is still leading by far even when it's about 30% more expensive. https://evdb.nz/sales
This is expected. Tesla enjoyed a more than a decade long position as the leader. Even now it’s a strong pick because of the extensive charging network they built. No other company comes close, and this charging network will reap recurring revenue for them.
However the cars themselves are really shitty. I mean really bad for quality and do not offer any aesthetic value either, they appear very plain and generic at this point. I can see why people are picking other cars. Of course the whole nazi turn of their founder doesn’t help.
> Even now it’s a strong pick because of the extensive charging network they built. No other company comes close, and this charging network will reap recurring revenue for them.
Didn't they fire the team behind the charging network a while ago? How has it been since then?
My brother-in-law, who has worked for both Tesla and Rivian and owned a 3, a Y, an R1T, is now on his second CT, and is just as unhappy with the second as he was with the first. Creaks, rattles, things feeling flimsy or fragile.
The article is referring to EV market share, which is a useless metric. The whole point of Tesla opening their patents and their chargers was to encourage more companies to make EV's, which would necessarily imply a drop in Tesla's EV market share.
The metric that I would like to see is Tesla's market share of the auto market in general (regardless of fuel type).
I like the new Model 3 and Model Y. It is unfortunate that they didn't do a facelift for the Model S and X. I know they've updated the motors and batteries and interior, but unless you look closely the Model X looks pretty much the same as it did in 2016.
It's complicated. Tesla sales rose 7% in July, month-over-month, but the expiration of subsidies hangs over the whole thing. This factor caused total EV sales in the US to jump 24%, month-over-month, as a whole bunch of sales got pulled from future quarters to the present. But because of the expiration of subsidies, those sales that got pulled ahead into July will probably not be there in September or October. This is why outside analysts expect that for 2025 as a whole, Tesla car sales numbers will decline versus 2024 as a whole. 2024 for Tesla as a whole, incidentally, was a 1.1% sales decrease over 2023. Two consecutive years of sales decline is a big warning sign, especially for a company that is considered a growth stock.
Cars tend to be more akin to fashion than consumer electronics. People care about how it looks, interior (eg cup holders) or what brand it is. Tesla is behind here as the traditional car companies have more experience in this.
Additionally, Tesla has not materially lowered their prices or spent a lot on marketing.
There is a lot of discussion of the brand being hurt, but I will say that personally I just don't want a new car period and Tesla specifically in large part because of privacy concerns. My understanding it that Tesla is one of the worst offenders in a group of massively offensive (to privacy) options. Are there actually privacy preserving options left in the market at all and in the EV market specifically? If Tesla promised, and delivered, privacy (actually didn't track) it would go a long way to rehabilitating them as a brand in my eyes. It probably wouldn't be enough, but I would at least look at them again.
The Slate truck might be the only one to have less digital tracking just due to how they are skipping so many electronic bells and whistles to keep costs in the $20k range.
The HN crowd does not reflect the majority of Americans, who simply do not care about "privacy", and are far more interested in whether their car has CarPlay or Android Auto - which Teslas don't.
Is it because the creepy breeding kink, drug addict CEO playing a neo nazi edgelord who supports far-right extremist parties all over the world? Or is it the noncompetitive products that were oversold for decades? FSD scam? Humanoid robot scam? Cyberanything fail?
Technically, I respect what Tesla has achieved, especially in terms of progress with autonomous driving. But honestly, every time I come across another report of a safety incident, it makes me hesitate. Even if it's a statistical issue, when it happens to you, it's 100%.
> Google, Amazon Robotics/Kiva, Hyundai/Boston Dynamics, even Nvidia are ahead of Tesla in AI+robotics.
Optimus seems to be much closer to actually being released as a product than Atlas. After over a decade, Boston Dynamics still hasn't shown anyone a live, unscripted demo of Atlas as far as I can tell (Tesla was showing those with multiple Optimus robots a year ago). And they don't appear to have any plans for actually selling it as a product anytime soon.
I'm skeptical of the humanoid robot market in general, but at the moment Tesla and Unitree appear to be the two companies ate the forefront of it.
This is a non-sequitur. The Optimus demonstrations so far have been partially controlled (though the degree to which they were appears to be overstated). This doesn't change the fact that they've done public demonstrations with the robots while Boston Dynamics hasn't.
This isn't true at all? Robots can be controlled externally, either fully or partially. ASIMO didn't stop being a robot because it was under external control for demonstrations (from what I can tell, much more external control than the Tesla robots).
The Tesla stock evaluation has little to do with what Tesla is delivering today and a lot more with what investors imagine they will be able to do in the future.
Based on their history I'm pretty optimistic that those expectations will not be met, but Tesla somehow still rises in value.
Yes. A lot of people, and obviously some "news" reporters, need to learn the difference between market share and stock price. And that as a market grows one company cannot maintain the same market share as competitors join in over time.
"Tesla is on track toward a second year of sales decline." - from the article
Consecutive years of sales declines is a situation where it does not matter if the market is growing or shrinking, it's bad for a company. The only way to grow if absolute sales go down is to raise margins on each individual unit.
"But with weakening sales and a host of competitors, Tesla has had to cut prices in recent years, squeezing its margins and worrying investors."
Hmmmm, I guess maybe the author of the article understands this better than you think?
I would say the smartphone market would be more stable in terms of market share by its nature. The only way that it would shift significantly is if there were a mass exodus of users from one platform to the other. But the vast majority of people are perfectly happy staying with whatever they have. Likewise, many new smartphone users who aren't locked into a platform yet get locked into whatever platform people around them are using.
In the vehicle market, there's a lot more competition space than just two or three brands. And just because someone is around, say, Ford drivers. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go out and buy a Ford for themselves. Rather, they're going to buy whatever they find appealing.
Very very risky (I'm still doing it though). Some very skilled short sellers lost a ton of money on Tesla - for example Jim Chanos - a guy who predicted the fall of Enron and shorted quite a lot of stocks that turned out trash - Beyond Meat, Wirecard, Hertz.
But he closed his fund late 2023, in big part because of his short position on Tesla. He's still a very vocal advocate of Teslaq. Feel really bad for the guy - Tesla will end up crashing, but it will take way way longer that anybody could anticipated.
Note that you would have lost 91% of your money over the last year with this. Gambling on the precise timing of a stock crash is really hard to make profitable.
Plus buying an inverse ETF has higher fees than actually shorting it and you can't make a pair trade or earn interest on the money.
As usual, articles against Tesla miss the picture. Of course their share would drop as other auto makers ramp up EV efforts. People here calling Tesla cars boring and bad are missing the point.
Company value is dependent on expected future profit/revenue/etc. not market share per se.
If the market grows in size and you’re able to grow revenue and profit, reduced market share in and of itself doesn’t matter.
While the U.S. market share has declined, Tesla's overall annual revenue has continued to grow from $11.75 billion in 2017 to over $97 billion in 2024, though it saw a slight decline in revenue for the 12 months ending June 30, 2025.
> If the market grows in size and you’re able to grow revenue and profit, reduced market share in and of itself doesn’t matter.
The Tesla story and its high valuation were based on the idea that Tesla had won the car market, others couldn’t catch up, and Tesla was going to be doing laps around the competition with all of their additional business lines that grew out of their class-leading EV business.
If their EV business is losing market share, that really is a problem for the narrative. They could be fine as an EV company, but they’ve sold themselves as something far more.
> Tesla's overall annual revenue has continued to grow from $11.75 billion in 2017
2017 was forever ago in technology and economic terms. The most important problem right now is that their revenue isn’t growing while everyone else is getting better at EVs.
> The Tesla story and its high valuation were based on the idea that Tesla had won the car market, others couldn’t catch up
This story never made sense. They sold about 1.8 million cars in 2024 (and also in 2023), VAG sold 9 million. Tesla is no where close to winning the car market. Until recently, Ford regularly sold more F-Series than Tesla sold cars.
Sure, for quite some time, Tesla was selling a lot more EVs than anyone else. But, building EVs is supposed to be easier than building ICE cars, and some of the old guard auto manufacturers have been building cars for hundreds of years... Once they decide to build EVs and figure out the logistics of batteries, they're going to have no trouble building EVs or selling them, and then Tesla is left with the moat of the Musk Reality Distortion Field which seems to be weaker now than ever.
When nobody else was making competent EVs, Telsa's market value was clear. Now, I don't know. There are so many to choose from, but what does a Tesla give you that some other EV doesn't?
> If their EV business is losing market share, that really is a problem for the narrative. They could be fine as an EV company, but they’ve sold themselves as something far more.
Long-term growth is pinned on success in AI, robotics, robotaxis, and autonomous services.
Most of the issue is that their competitors are selling at a big loss. Ford admitted so recently and are starting to make fewer cars. Rivian and lucid are also hemmoraging money.
Without the tax credit these companies may cease to exist or stop making evs in the case of Ford.
2025 is half done, and Tesla is down about $3B/quarter compared to last year already. If that trend keeps up, then 2025 will come in around $85B or so. (Although analyst expectations seem to be that Q3 and Q4 will jump back to 2024 levels, which... really defies all the available evidence.)
Marketshare is how revenue is determined. If the market as whole grows but Tesla's share of it does not at least stay static, it means it is losing revenue.
That's not how revenue is determined. Revenue is determined by, well, revenue.
You can lose market share and increase revenue if the market is growing fast enough.
If you measure market share by units moved (as many markets are measured), you can raise prices and increase revenue despite lower unit sales and lost market share.
Heck, the backup cross traffic detection only alerts when a car or pedestrian is already crossed and out of view. It’s absurdly bad.
If he cared at all, you'd see a better repair process with them. There is a Tesla repair hub in Calgary where I live, and I had to wait 5 weeks for them to see my car (including an un-explained situation where they bumped me, despite me being concerned about a safety issue). I eventually took it to an EV repair shop who did it for half of what Tesla quoted because, FFS, the world's most valuable auto company is "Resource Constrained" with mechanics.
Seriously, how can they afford a trillion on a CEO when they are parking expensive Cybertrucks on the front lawn of their Calgary store?
I still love driving my car (a 2019 Model 3), but I have no faith that Tesla will actually improve on it with their current leadership structure.
The relationship between dealerships and OEMs is complicated, incestuous and fundamentally adversarial.
That they went with online sales only was an incredibly smart move and they cut out an unwanted middleman. I’ve been following Tesla for a long time. I made a small fortune investing in them in 2012.
The folks at Tesla Motor Club were very happy to buy directly from Tesla.
The fact that they took longer AND were more expensive than local providers was ridiculous, and certainly not a good look compared to my experiences at Toyota with my Sienna.
-edit- (That and the fact that they shouldn't be resource constrained when the most valuable car company in the world)
The first thing I thought of when I saw that pay package being floated was the current state that Tesla is in. That's the primary reason such a package seems so fucking bonkers.
Well, color me just absolutely shocked.
Respectfully, bullshit; auto insurance companies I've dealt with certainly begged to differ, and have priced comprehensive/collision premiums for Teslas accordingly.
Early on this was in their favor, but with more automakers entering the fray with serious attempts to compete, they’re going to have to add at least a couple more models to reman competitive: something in the vein of a Chevy Bolt on one end and an SUV that’s the next step up in size from the Y/X on the other. A more conventional truck that more directly competes with the F-150 also couldn’t hurt.
The nerd in me loves the technology, particularly behind the scenes features of the Cybertruck like 48v architecture. In the end I want to drive something that feels like it has a soul and substance. Teslas lineup right now is not that.
The Cybertruck is just am embarrassment, design wise.
I say all of this as a recent $TSLA bear with a healthy short position.
Based on the criteria, you might like the Fiat Multipla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Multipla
That's because they did. The initial plan was for the plates to double as the frame of the car. That's how they could have achieved the seamless look of the renders. Turns out they couldn't make it work for whatever reason and the plates are just on top of the frame.
But I know what you're saying. I give it credit for being out there when nothing else in the auto industry is. Sadly though, its failure will likely further entrench the rest of the industry.
When the politics are that front and center, it becomes a real liability to the company.
(And yes, a quick google confirms[0] the RAV4 is ahead of any Tesla offering this year.)
[0]: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g64457986/bestselling-cars...
edit: see replies, this is US-only.
Best selling in 2024 world wide was Model Y even including trucks? https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-worlds-best-sell...
The more interesting stat is that Toyota has 5 of the top 10 best selling cars.
Not saying it's wrong (I have no idea, that's why I googled), but would be interesting to know.
edit: but also, you're right that I inadvertently looked at US-only data. I did say it was a quick Google. :) Edited my original comment.
I'm imagining a designer looking at the earlier windshield slant, and knowing they could work with that, and retain references to the iconic earlier design.
Tesla EVs have the most data to support their reliability (at least the 3/Y), and they are clearly very reliable. Plus it costs just as much as a Rav 4, but has tons more torque. And the software is much better even though it lacks Carplay.
All companies are trying to cut on variety right now. Of course, a software service used daily won't be hit as hard as a mid-class car company. Heck, even the affordable car companies are charging mid tier prices these days. The results are clear if things don't change.
I fully agree, I just wanted to focus specifically on how their offerings are lackluster even if there weren’t other problems.
Truth is, a single trans got a can of beer with own face, made short video and rught wing decided to make it into a campaing, because trans must be destroyed. That is it.
I don't agree, as we are not quantifying the emotional aspect of the purchasing process. If people "love" the brand, they are willing to overlook a lot of things. Tesla was a status symbol and is now seen as a regret purchase and a toxic brand for many (see Europe and Canada for examples). I can't see how "politics" should not be considered as it does play a critical role in how people spend money. There is a reason why a lot of companies are not open about politics and I don't think I've ever seen a CEO that was so forth coming with their beliefs as Elon Musk.
The QC on the Cybertruck pretty much shows why they lost their brand power over the years, though. Even when ignoring the politics.
[0] I’m not sure anyone agrees what it’s called.
> The QC
Was never Tesla’s forte.
I may be proven wrong, but until then I'll point to ~ten years of FSD promises.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please consider what your commentary adds to the discussion before posting, repetition detracts from thread quality. Thanks!
https://www.focus2move.com/world-car-market/
I don’t know if you have checked out other OEMs lineups lately…Ford doesn’t even make a sedan anymore. That’s right. Just SUVs and trucks. And mustang supercar. Other OEMs have similarly trimmed their lineups. You can thank CAFE er al for that.
Don't forget that about the other 95% of the people on earth
Does it? Since they stopped building the Mondeo in Europe they don’t sell any sedans there or in most places I’m aware of. The only Ford sedan I’m aware of in production anywhere is the Chinese-market Ford Mondeo built in a joint venture with Changan.
Somewhat, but I'll blame business finance way, way, way more.
The US automakers are doing the exact same dumbass thing they did in the 1970s with "BIGGER!-shouted (and more profitable)-whispered" until the Japanese automakers showed up and wiped the floor with them.
Well, BYD is coming and is going to wipe the floor with them.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_Y_L
But yes, I fully agree that deprioritizing/stopping the low-cost "Model 2" was a major mistake. Particularly with tariffs keeping Chinese EVs out, Tesla could have pretty much owned the space in the US. (Although Elon's DOGE antics would still have alienated a large portion of the customer base.)
Keep in mind that these things will be built in Japan and imported. I’m sure Tesla could’ve figured out some way to have an offering the same price or cheaper.
Seeing US salaries and the strength of the US dollar (and the weakness of the yen right now!)... I wonder.
At one point I don't know how you can be competitive with factories abroad. This is where protectionism comes in I guess!
I have no dog in this fight, I trust "normal" car companies for my car needs.
All the other 3-rows have decent headroom in that last row. The Kia and Hyundai almost 42 inches. I haven't looked into the Cadillac or Volvo, but from the outside they look about the same.
All but the shortest adults and children will be uncomfortable in the Tesla third row. I'll bet it's used more for groceries than passengers.
To compete in the 3-row market, I think Tesla's gotta build something that can accommodate adults too.
If they were not hurting super bad, they would have a factory tooling up for Roadster2
I assume the cyberflop is the missing revenue they needed to keep the flywheel going
And in many ways it's inferior to the Y. Tesla's mega casting and structural pack gives the Y excellent range and a lower weight for a cheaper battery.
I think the reason Tesla hasn't done mega casting and structural packs for the other lineups (besides the equipment costs) is because it'd make them eat into the revenue of the top tier models. A model 3 cutting down several hundred pounds would be range competitive with the model S. The shorter range LFP batteries could still land you in previously long range land.
Tesla has image problem. Y refresh is getting praise. Edmunds says its the best car they’ve driven in 2025. It should be selling like hotcakes. I don’t think anything is fixing Tesla unless they fire musk.
Pricing is another question though, and no CarPlay/AA while also coming from an old guard auto manufacturer means no sale from me.
I’m not sure that’s going to work out for them in the long run. Last I knew, Honda’s Prologue which is a rebadged Blazer EV and supports CarPlay/AA is outselling the Blazer.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/joe-biden-china-tariff-hike...
To be precise, 100% on vehicles, 50% on solar cells, and 25% on Batteries.
This was frmom a year ago, though. Who knows if/what Trump added on top of that.
Bonus Article: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a62694325/ford-ceo-jim-far...
>Ford CEO Jim Farley admitted he has been driving a Xiaomi SU7 for six months and said he "doesn't want to give it up."
If I'm making an inappropriate joke to my wife while we drive, I'd prefer the former than the later.
(Obviously, much like you I assume, I'd rather have no internet connection)
Most truck drivers will never tow a thing in their lives, and they will almost certainly never offroad (unless you count the leaves on the driveway)
EV trucks make perfect sense in that context.
Semi-solid state is coming for Tesla's lunch.
"Tesla has image problem." You mean the multiple nazi salutes? The "don't apologize to your past" to the AfD? Being high on something on national television? Unhinged posts on twitter? Kekius Maximus?
EVs are luxury products. You can get 90% of electification with a 50-mile-range PHEV and mitigate the charging infrastructure problem. I have a used Tesla and a PHEV, and if my PHEV only had 50 instead of the paltry 20 mile range, 100% of my daily trips would be fully electrified.
As for further examples of Musk's incompetence, there should be three different badges: Tesla, an ultra-high luxury brand that focuses on traditional cabin comfort, and a low end mass brand. They should have a minivan, station wagon, an actual large SUV, a subcompact city car, a real pickup truck, a work van, and where is the goddamn semi?
Tesla should have bought a struggling auto company for manufacturing, design, and suppliers, and used that for the low-end badge and for PHEVs. Nissan would have been perfect I would think.
Tesla should at this point have joint ventures with huge numbers of electrification avenues: construction equipment, prosumer lawn mowers, "side by sides", golf carts, ATVs, jet skis, boats, if it has an ICE motor, Tesla should be expanding into it with a good name brand.
Of course Tesla solar is moribund, the solar roof is nowhere.
And if anyone claims again that grid storage will deliver some massive sales to Tesla: any success is temporary. Grid will be won by sodium ion and other grid-specific storage chemistries that cylindrical cell manufacture won't be able to compete with.
And yet another point: Tesla's cylindrical cells were an advantage ... five years ago. It's not anymore. Sodium Ion, LFP, semi-solid state, sulfur chems, all will probably be pouch. Cylindrical is basically legacy manufacturing tech.
Musk's cozying up and inevitable fallout with Trump definitely put the EV credits in crosshairs. Probably wouldn't have survived the era of insanity, but that gravy train (1/3 of tesla's profits ... at least) is over.
Finally, let's not forget the total disaster that the dry-cathode 4680 battery cell is. Basically still vaporware, and the Chinese manufacturers have better tech already in manufacture.
AND YET, I'm sure the stock will go up based on the bad news.
.. until Trump accepts a bribe or 20 .. I mean makes a deal.
Trump's net worth has increased by $1 billion since 2024.
Tesla sales growth was already slowing day significantly before Musk showed who he really is to the wider public. There was no way they were hitting their announced target - they were supposedly going to do +50% each year until 2030, and end up selling 20M cars / year. They dropped this prediction in 2024, before 'political issues'...
"Sales of new EVs jumped more than 24% month over month in July to 128,268, according to the Cox data, driven by the looming end of a $7,500 tax credit for EVs and attractive deals. Tesla saw sales rise 7% to 53,816, even as its market share fell."
Another POV is the measurement is meaningless, and the market seems to agree.
The auto industry is a good bet as long as you think Americans of means gravitate towards a car lifestyle, which is almost certainly true.
When they removed the center horn and the stalks from their cars, they officially jumped the shark. But I bet they saved at least $50 per car from their costs. I still can't believe the NHTSA hasn't issued a recall.
Having owned both, I’m not even sure where to begin with how laughably inaccurate that is. We can start at functioning automatic wipers, 360 degree cameras, parking assist that actually works, a knob to control stereo volume, accurate marketing numbers for range, a dealership network that actually will fix the issue, insurance that isn’t insane, headlight brights that actually dim at an appropriate distance for oncoming traffic, cruise control that doesn’t phantom brake (slam on the brakes for no reason) traveling down the highway…
Need I continue? Because I can.
I’ve driven a Model 3 and its handling and overall feel was worse than a barebones Honda Civic. I’d say a Model 3 is on par with how a low end Chrysler feels to drive.
Why are you staring at your instrument panel and not the road? The speed is just a glance at the top corner as you should be focused on driving ;)
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-DEB259C...
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-DEB259C...
If your CEO bribes voters to help elect a traitorous pedophile and then personally (and illegally) cuts aid funding directly causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and all of that hurts business, that's something you have to include for context! That's some crazy stuff!
I love to hate on Elon as much as the next person, but everything was above board.
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/canada-clears-tesla-in-izev...
> Tesla’s head of sales for Canada, emphasized in a March 28 letter that the filings followed program guidelines, which allowed post-delivery submissions despite recommendations for pre-delivery assessments.
but this alludes to something more:
> Despite the clearance, Tesla will still be excluded from future iZEV programs
Huh. Why, I wonder?
It isn't a mystery, the PM of Canada and several premiers have openly stated that Tesla isn't going to be eligible because Musk is Musk, and Tesla is American.
At some point EVs should be way cheaper than ICE vehicles.
Tesla's received favorable attention for it's "claim" they are (were?) working on a $30k car.
And that techno-ideological claim that "all you need for self-driving is a camera" is a cost-savings solution. [ A robotics prof, ( I think at a university in Philadelphia ? ) cites a statistic that camera based navigation will succeed 97% of the time, max. So, 3% failures over all scenarios. ]
Musk hasn’t said anything that isn’t a lie since when I could dunk the basket (a loooong while ago)
So literally he killed the affordable 'Model 2' because self driving would destroy 80% of the market and if that was true there wasn't demand.
So he decided to only focus on 'RoboTaxi'.
However the cars themselves are really shitty. I mean really bad for quality and do not offer any aesthetic value either, they appear very plain and generic at this point. I can see why people are picking other cars. Of course the whole nazi turn of their founder doesn’t help.
Didn't they fire the team behind the charging network a while ago? How has it been since then?
The metric that I would like to see is Tesla's market share of the auto market in general (regardless of fuel type).
I like the new Model 3 and Model Y. It is unfortunate that they didn't do a facelift for the Model S and X. I know they've updated the motors and batteries and interior, but unless you look closely the Model X looks pretty much the same as it did in 2016.
So they’re still selling more cars, but there’s hotter EV competition.
I thought that was the goal.
If you look at the existing vehicles:
- they no longer sell Model S and X in Europe and right hand markets
- Model S has had one external visual change since it was introduced, Model X has never had one
- the refreshed Model 3 and Y don’t really have any battery or charging improvements, last time they updated those was 8 years ago
- no V2L like others
- no increased battery capacity
- no 800V on anything outside CT
- Tesla’s charging curves compared to others are laughable
- no increased creature comforts, eg massaging seats, screens for passenger, air suspension, automated frunk, 360 view, etc
- no FSD worldwide
- Autopilot hasn’t seen an update in years
- park assist is horrible compared to USS
The market has really caught up and in a lot of places outpaced Tesla - Rivian, Audi, Polestar, Volvo, Hyundai, KIA have better products
Additionally, Tesla has not materially lowered their prices or spent a lot on marketing.
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1M6lm4...
Optimus seems to be much closer to actually being released as a product than Atlas. After over a decade, Boston Dynamics still hasn't shown anyone a live, unscripted demo of Atlas as far as I can tell (Tesla was showing those with multiple Optimus robots a year ago). And they don't appear to have any plans for actually selling it as a product anytime soon.
I'm skeptical of the humanoid robot market in general, but at the moment Tesla and Unitree appear to be the two companies ate the forefront of it.
Based on their history I'm pretty optimistic that those expectations will not be met, but Tesla somehow still rises in value.
The market can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent.
Consecutive years of sales declines is a situation where it does not matter if the market is growing or shrinking, it's bad for a company. The only way to grow if absolute sales go down is to raise margins on each individual unit.
"But with weakening sales and a host of competitors, Tesla has had to cut prices in recent years, squeezing its margins and worrying investors."
Hmmmm, I guess maybe the author of the article understands this better than you think?
Why not? Look at Apple's smartphone market share in the US. It's been fairly constant at 60% for the last 15 years.
In the vehicle market, there's a lot more competition space than just two or three brands. And just because someone is around, say, Ford drivers. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go out and buy a Ford for themselves. Rather, they're going to buy whatever they find appealing.
But he closed his fund late 2023, in big part because of his short position on Tesla. He's still a very vocal advocate of Teslaq. Feel really bad for the guy - Tesla will end up crashing, but it will take way way longer that anybody could anticipated.
Plus buying an inverse ETF has higher fees than actually shorting it and you can't make a pair trade or earn interest on the money.
If the market grows in size and you’re able to grow revenue and profit, reduced market share in and of itself doesn’t matter.
While the U.S. market share has declined, Tesla's overall annual revenue has continued to grow from $11.75 billion in 2017 to over $97 billion in 2024, though it saw a slight decline in revenue for the 12 months ending June 30, 2025.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/revenue
The Tesla story and its high valuation were based on the idea that Tesla had won the car market, others couldn’t catch up, and Tesla was going to be doing laps around the competition with all of their additional business lines that grew out of their class-leading EV business.
If their EV business is losing market share, that really is a problem for the narrative. They could be fine as an EV company, but they’ve sold themselves as something far more.
> Tesla's overall annual revenue has continued to grow from $11.75 billion in 2017
2017 was forever ago in technology and economic terms. The most important problem right now is that their revenue isn’t growing while everyone else is getting better at EVs.
This story never made sense. They sold about 1.8 million cars in 2024 (and also in 2023), VAG sold 9 million. Tesla is no where close to winning the car market. Until recently, Ford regularly sold more F-Series than Tesla sold cars.
Sure, for quite some time, Tesla was selling a lot more EVs than anyone else. But, building EVs is supposed to be easier than building ICE cars, and some of the old guard auto manufacturers have been building cars for hundreds of years... Once they decide to build EVs and figure out the logistics of batteries, they're going to have no trouble building EVs or selling them, and then Tesla is left with the moat of the Musk Reality Distortion Field which seems to be weaker now than ever.
When nobody else was making competent EVs, Telsa's market value was clear. Now, I don't know. There are so many to choose from, but what does a Tesla give you that some other EV doesn't?
Long-term growth is pinned on success in AI, robotics, robotaxis, and autonomous services.
Without the tax credit these companies may cease to exist or stop making evs in the case of Ford.
It's likely they will have fewer competitors soon
2024: $97.69 B, i.e. +0.95% vs. 2023
2023: $96.77 B, i.e. +18.8% vs. 2022
2022: $81.46 B, i.e. +51.35% vs. 2021
So flat for 1 year (going into 2024) and we don't yet know 2025 numbers, which is less pessimistic than your "almost 3 years flat".
You can lose market share and increase revenue if the market is growing fast enough.
If you measure market share by units moved (as many markets are measured), you can raise prices and increase revenue despite lower unit sales and lost market share.