Because of the allure of innovation. An innovative company does not need profit to attract investors. Because a big company can always buy them out in the end.
Whatever Tesla builds can be reverse engineered and copied. Audi is already doing that. There are too many car companies. And they all are willing to work with low margins…
You can say the same thing about Apple, google, Facebook, or any other company out there. What sets a company apart from the rest is first mover advantage and accumulation of a loyal customer base. Also, product quality sets them apart due to first mover advantage and brand recognition. It’s a self fulfilling virtuous cycle.
1 Like
BMW, Audi Mercedes Toyota GM are all quality brands. . Musky is frittering away his competitive advantage. He is running out of time…
They are quality but they got distracted by their main product line. EV is like a side business to them. Not one of them is going all out with EV like Tesla is. That’s why if someone were to buy an EV they would most likely choose Tesla because it’s brand recognition and it’s quality. No one wants to own someone’s side project.
Well, at least in 2015 we were in the top 25 world wide according to this author… not too shabby for only 7x7
As long as there is an oil glut, EV will be a side business. Besides I believe the internal combustion engine is far from dead. 75mpg hybrids will be more attractive than EV and just as environmentally friendly. EV is not the only option out there. Plenty of other options including hydrogen
You have to count the entire Bay Area as a whole as one economic region. SF is just part of the whole pie, although it is indeed the centerpiece.
I do believe internal combustion engine is on its way out like the typewriter. EV is the new computer in town.
Sydney is the only other option I would consider. And it is small and parochial compared to the BA
Not in my lifetime
Uh, only if you wanted to include the rest of the Bay. SF can stand on its own…
But in mine! I’m already buying one… 
It can stand on its own the same way that Downtown London can stand on its own. However, comparing the entire city of London to SF alone is comparing apples to oranges.
Oh but you know what… I think that article of yours actually meant the entire Bay Area when they talk about “san francisco”
Again, are we interpreting articles written by others now? I would think the author would specify that if he meant it.
Actually, I’m not sure about that anymore… yes , it could just be SF and not Bay Area… 
Agreed, and I have seen obviously articles mentioning SF-metro area or in footnotes clarifying that he/she meant the Bay Area. Obviously, if you include the Bay Area we would be near the top in terms of economic output
We are number 4 in the country behind NY, LA, and D.C.-Baltimore.
LA has some livable areas DC NY no way…
Rotten at the core 
The wave has moved out 
now at SV.
1 Like