.
That is a good one.
Anyhoo, my questions in the post are all directed to @manch, and not at you or @wuqijun, not sure why need to respond. What I ask could just be to keep @manch thinking cap on… and may not representing my real beliefs.
1 Like
altair, visicalc
googled it though!
1 Like
Guess you get the message 
1 Like
I used to think traditional car firms could easily catch up to Tesla. I no longer think that. It goes beyond just technology, although the dinosaurs suck at software which is fatal in EV, let alone AV.
Most of their problems are organizational and cultural. It’s a bit like how no phone manufacturers have caught up to iPhone despite over a decade of trying. Clay Christensen’s books were the first to identify a firm’s organizational problem against disruptive innovations. Everybody mean to do the right things, within the existing framework, but that turns out to be exactly the wrong thing.
2 Likes
Speaking of the future:
Are you referring to this Clay Christensen?
HB: You’ve been vocal for years on Apple having a not particularly desirable business model, because they have a closed system. It has surpassed lots of expectations. Why has the iPhone not failed?
But the basis of that concern for Apple is another theory that we have, as spelled out in “The Innovator’s Solution.” And what it says is, in the early years of an industry’s life, almost always the dominant products are proprietary and interdependent in their architecture.
…in the end modularity always wins.
2007 to now… till in early years? No, right? What is he talking about?
Wait a minute… are you referring to TSLA?
Are you saying if a group of companies join forces, each build different modules*, they would defeat TSLA?
Note*: I am not au fait with car modules, my WAG: Chassis design, chassis manufacturing, assembly plants, operating system, navigation, software apps, battery, tires, chargers, charging stations, etc.
Yup. I read and understand
Tesla cannot make its Berlin plant cheaper in construction despite all the previous experiance in plants and local source of industrial machinery(German and Italian) and we are supposed to believe they can hire qualified people cheaper?. Just wait for one or two quarters of profuction. Look at the higher plant salary and still no qualified person.
Clay’s books are one of a few business books Steve Jobs read and liked. If you want to be a master you better read them too.
Clay was wrong about Apple because smartphones don’t fit in the typical trajectory of products like PC. Think how PC went from a closed proprietary and vertical system to an open horizontal one as technology matures, as one component after another became good enough. Clay thought that smartphones would follow a similar pattern but he was wrong.
He being wrong on one thing doesn’t mean he’s wrong on everything. His analysis of why old companies can’t seem to innovate is classic. Why did Xerox invent GUI on computers but it was Apple who made the Mac? It was Kodak who invented digital photography but it ended up being BK’ed by it. IBM invented SQL but it was Oracle that commercialized it. On and on.
2 Likes
Lol. You certainly are special.
.
Supposed to be predictive. After the fact conclusion? Who doesn’t know. I don’t need a professor to tell me so.
Sure this is what you believe in?
You think his idea is great because you didn’t realize there is a broader principle in play.
The skillsets/ cultural setting require for one stage may not apply to the next stage of the development.
Many inventors didn’t get rich. Invent something doesn’t imply able to commercialize something.
Ability to analyze doesn’t imply can make decision well. Notice hedge manager makes decision about buy and sell while stock analysts (fundamentals and technicals) only analyze.
Btw, I use to think highly about people like Clay, no longer so because I realize most of the “new” theory/ principles are either instances or corollaries of some existing broader and more generic theory/ principle.
Let’s get back to EV/ AV. In the EV/ AV market which approach makes the most money? integrated approach like what TSLA did or a modularity approach like what Clay claim to be superior? In modularity approach, usually only a few module builders make money.
Smartphone market: Apple integrated approach makes most money while Android modular approach has the largest market share.
PC market: PC manufacturers make hardly anything while OS module maker MSFT and CPU/GPU module makers make most of the money.
The only interesting news I have heard is Tesla planning on teaming up with Toyota on a truck. That is a game changer. So far Tesla cars are unreliable, hard to manufacture in large quantities, hard to repair and basically toys for neurotic liberals as a second car status symbol. Toyota could teach them to build quality cars that last twenty years instead of the 2-3 years hold time now.
BTW comparing cars to cell phones is ridiculous. Bureaucracy will kill EV and AT the same way it has crippled the construction industry
hardware firms like lenovo revenue growth very high. its all about hardware and physical products now. no one know actual money that MSFT make as it is virtual.
.
I meant profit not revenue. Do a quick search, hard to tell how profitability is the PC business.
INVZ CEO says Elon will include LIDAR soon to achieve FSD
1 Like
.
So he has been lying! He wants to fool other competitors? Only some investors are fooled. Competitors are not that foolish.
next 5nm auto chip coming in 2022 vehicles. current is 14nm for hardware 3.0.
EV investors have dealt with a lot already in 2021. Higher interest rates, which make financing growth more expensive and reduce the value of future cash flows, hurt EV stocks. So has the chip shortage.
There will be historic transfer of wealth to China and Korea if we continue to build vehicles that need chips and batteries. Korea exports alone at current rate reaching $700B. this is in addition to income from Global Korean factories.
as predicted. real game will start once factory in operation.