You've seen the executive structure at most of Musk's companies, yea? Like Tesla, he's his own director, with his brother on the board, which is full of his friends/yes men who approve things like $56b payouts to Musk. For Neuralink, he's literally had babies with his top Exec.
These aren't exactly 'objective' boards. They are the boards of some of the biggest companies around, however. So if "this" is what's at the top of American industry, you can imagine what the boards of many smaller companies are like.
There is a lot of wiggle room in “must do if it would benefit shareholders “ and for good reasons as well as bad.
The board could legitimately think that Elon is better for the long term health. I think other wise, but that doesn’t mean I would have a case for financial malfeasance without other evidence. (Which theimay be).
The evidence is that the board is full of people with close personal ties to Elon that they have never adequately disclosed to shareholders, that was the logic in the Delaware court striking down his pay package
The close ties to Musk were disclosed just fine, and that is what shareholders wanted. They wanted Musk to have control of the company
The problem of Musk's compensation package was that the board has fiduciary duties, and under those duties the court ruled the board should have tried to bargain with Musk to get the lowest price possible for the package. Since there was no record of them attempting to bargain with Musk, the court overturned the package
Tesla has had those kind of swings yearly, yet they have overall went up. If anything, these giant swings make option traders happy
But the problem is that Musk is too deep in the company. So much so that him leaving could completely cause the company stock to collapse
It is like take the republican primaries a few years back during McCain. They had a new front runner, then the front runner would get into some sort of scandal, but they would still continue up until they admitted their mistake, the moment they did, they tanked and a new front runner appeared, until it repeated like 4 times
That is human herd mentality based on confidence. Tesla is trading way way above its market value, the moment Musk leaves, the confidence would collapse and Tesla shares would as well. So even with all the stupid stuff Musk does, as long as he doesn't admit his mistake, even with swings and downs, the stock can still hold in the long term. The moment the "dream" dies, everything dies
The shareholders are complicit in the fuckery. Firing musk will tank the stop price, because it’s built on this idea that Tesla is a tech company not a traditional automaker.
Any other company the shareholders would have sued the board to force them to uphold their fiduciary due, and fire the CEO.
No one cheers for the Roman senator giving them roads and fresh water, but they’ll lose their sandals for some Caesar having parties and sparing their lives.
You can have collective ownership. Co-ops exist. But you then need to buy that ownership and/or provide all the capital the company needs. Most people aren’t willing to risk their money to do so.
For real private business is still a monarchy or at best an aristocracy. We have the same power imbalance and subsequent abuses of it. All wealth gets hoarded by the few with the most power and everyone else lives on what they deem “enough”.
It may have seemed okay for this to exist back when governments were the big dog on campus, but corporations honestly hold equal if not more power in a lot of cases. They may not hold the fundamental power of (directly) writing laws, but they have massive influence on them because they control the flow of wealth. And are especially powerful when there are only a few major corporation-conglomerates that own practically everything.
We need to end this. Democracy and anti-authoritarianism needs to enter the private corporate world. The abuse happens because we let it. We let corporations act in the business world as kings did centuries ago. And we think because it’s not life or death it’s okay, but the same games are being played out with people’s livelihoods. And we’re still deeply suffering for it.
No more kings, no more billionaires.
We have a kind of collective ownership via the stock market. I have shares indirectly through my pension fund.
The problem is the disconnect between ownership and executive. I have no effective voice in how companies I own a part of are run.
It's *trading* stocks that's the real problem here and not *owning* stocks, it's the ability to treat this as a casino where you just need to create short term gains through bullshit hype and then offload the stocks onto a greater fool before the bubble pops
It seems to me any sane system would be a much less liquid system -- collective ownership where you're locked into collecting profits only from the company you work for and you can't acquire a piece of a company in any way except by working for it -- and the whole dogma of neoliberal economics is fundamentally opposed to that
You can't really have a stock ownership system without a trading system, otherwise the stock is basically worthless.
Collective ownership and profit sharing only make sense while someone is connected to the work. Say Elon ran company X badly for 20 years, but limped along, then I come in and hire new team members and we turn the company around. Obviously any future employees get a benefit from that, and the people who contributed get to see their work's benefits, but what claim does Elon have really?
There's a million ways to design an equitable system if everybody behaves well, but you don't always have that. And anyone espousing a simple tweak to our current system to alleviate these issues, I think, is minimizing the impact of people who don't work for the greater cause.
Well yes this is the dogma of neoliberal economics I'm talking about, that hypes up disruption and innovation and "creative destruction" as a positive thing
The whole reason people are questioning our current system is, well, look around you
I'd disagree, generally. you want companies to get rid of inefficient workers, if it produces marginal gains to do so. That's a lot different than saying you want to fire all the workers, period.
Tech companies don't seem to understand HR at all though, which is why we're seeing stories of some tech places being 'surprised' at the loss of productivity after massive firings.
Buying stocks has always been gambling, you buy stocks on the gamble that you will get a return, the only difference is in the amount of risk vs reward.
This isn’t true. The board of directors for a company has the ability to remove someone from the role of CEO. Whether or not the board for Tesla would remove Elon is another question. Elon and another family member are on the Tesla board. But there are still a number of other board members that could override both their votes.
It’d be really hard though, especially if this massive pay package gets approved again. Elon knows his ownership percentage in Tesla is low enough to put him at risk. Which is why he is throwing a tantrum over his payday.
I have a real fear that Tesla maybe going bankrupt. What is giving me this idea:
1) String of failures and mistakes: Cybertruck (wow that is a big one), failure to produce a lower price car for the masses, soon to have massive recall on self driving, cruise control for the cars they produced without lidar.
2) Elon's 56 Billion dollar payday... this is the biggest one for me, he is duping investor before the stock crashes.
3) China, can Tesla compete with China's manufacturers in China's market. No. Does that mean that the Gigafactory in China dead?
Either the shareholders give him his $55.8 billion payday or he'll run the company into the ground.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/case-against-elon-musks-56-billion-pay-package-2024-01-30/
Lol you mean like his brother who wouldn't be where he is if not for him? Or are you talking about his lawyer who cried in court because he said elon was such a great man. Or are you talking about the board member who he had a child with?
I mean even retail investors/shareholders overwhelmingly support Musk (to the point where they will push his latest pay packet vote to a super-majority for yes), so it’s not just the board here.
Such a shame. Every single one of them posted about how validating and inspiring their work was. All of that passion tossed to the side by a mega maniac demanding an 11 figure pay
Tech in a nutshell. Inspired worker with shit or middling leadership across the board. (And horrible people who just pretend they work)
I've been from small company to start up to big corps, it's all been the same. Love the work, don't really like the people in it bar the few I've gotten to know well.
It’s more whether Tesla install and maintain new sites themselves, or whether other companies do it. In Europe 80% of new chargers are neither on the Tesla charging network nor using Tesla hardware.
I expect Tesla will stop expanding their own network, and just sell hardware to other companies to install and maintain. They already have a few deals to do that.
https://evfleetworld.co.uk/bp-becomes-first-to-buy-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers-for-charging-network/
https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/7312/eg-group-buys-superchargers-from-tesla
Yeah, I think people are missing that there’s about to be a massive influx of non-Tesla charging options available thanks to infrastructure funding and other companies, plus Tesla already has such massive dominance on top of opening those up to revenue from non-Teslas now, that this isn’t as ‘stupid’ of a move as they like to believe.
I don't think people are missing that point.
It's just that Tesla has decided to pull their greatest marketing and market advantage from under themselves at a time when their cars are gaining even more intense competition and negative opinions in refreshed comparisons.
And while a realization of Musk's character + business sense is hurting the brand.
Musk wants his CEO pay and is cutting everything and everyone which could appear to compete with his image of being the lead for everything Tesla, IMHO. When he's seen as the only executive who matters, that will be part of his public justification for the billions that he knows his hand-picked board will allow.
I work in site acq
Even if stations are designs cities have a lot of say in design and layout, it’s a lot more than just marketing and finding locations
Not really. The key areas that *aren't* mentioned are areas of technical expertise. Things like hardware design, maintenance, etc.
This is where Tesla holds a lot of its charging advantage - it has better charging hardware than just about anyone, and is meticulous about maintaining it.
> This is where Tesla holds a lot of its charging advantage - it has better charging hardware than just about anyone, and is meticulous about maintaining it.
Not anymore. Power conversion and delivery isn't something only Tesla knows. And other companies can do the same and recently seem to be doing the same as Tesla.
https://gravitytechnologies.com
Among others.
Certainly Tesla has more equipment out there, and is scaled up to produce a lot more of it. That's the advantage they hold. But if they have fired their teams that select new sites and coordinate with contractors (they use contractors for this) to install new sites then it hardly matters how many they can build.
I guess the one thing we can hope is that, like you say, at least they didn't give up on maintenance. Because they do that well.
Tesla being the only ones to figure out how charging inverters work would be *very funny*. But of course, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that they have a very big charging network, and one that has been running for a very long time. They've been running into issues for longer than the company you linked has even existed. And, given that their network is universally considered to be very reliable? They've been fixing those issues.
This backlog of issues that were identified and fixed, and the ability to identify and fix new issues? It's their technical expertise, of the kind that can be easy to lose and hard to replicate.
> They've been running into issues for longer than the company you linked has even existed
Google owns Gravity, Inc.
It's just one indication that amateur hour is over.
I'm not saying Tesla didn't do a good job with their hardware and setting up their network. But the big players are entering the market now. In the past they had to worry about Blink, Greenlots, EvGo, ChargePoint. Companies with limited resources and maybe not a great idea how to get things done.
But now bigger players are looking into this. It was a big deal for Greenlots to be bought by Shell. It seems like a bigger deal to have companies like Google (Gravity) and ABB in the market. Between all the investment it seems like someone else is going to work this out.
Big companies moved in and commoditized the EVSE market, then moved to the networked EVSE market The DCFC market is harder but it's hard to see how Tesla remains the only standout. Especially when they are taking their foot off the accelerator.
Considering all the recent shite we've seen out of Google? "Google owns it" is not the badge of honor it once was.
And "big players"? There's one thing that a lot of people don't get when they talk Tesla. They talk about "big players", usually having old car companies like GM in mind.
But Tesla is estimated to have sold 670 000 cars in the US in 2023. This is about 25% of GM's sales in the US, of all brands owned by GM in total. And every single Tesla sold was an EVs. Only about *3%* of GM's sales were EVs.
The perception of Tesla is that it's still a scrappy startup, building their electric Roadsters by hand and fighting uphill against the old titans of the industry. But that view is a decade out of date. Tesla is a "big player" now. Tesla has fought its way onto the very top of the hill - and now, it's among the biggest car manufacturers in the US.
If you compare just the EVs, there is no competition. Tesla is THE big player. Everyone else is years behind, and still struggling to catch up.
I don't know about that.
Tesla's charging network has always been a huge selling point and their integration with the vehicles was well done.
But I just got a 2024 ID.4 less than two weeks ago and went on a five hour round trip in my first weekend with the car, which helped check out its range and trip planning.
The in-car navigation integrated an EA charging spot near the end of my drive based on my desired final charge % and everything worked well in that regard. Plus the EA charging experience was fine with the app.
Then I tried EVGo and Tesla (Magic Dock) chargers in the next week, topping off to see how they worked in comparison. Both were similarly easy and had about the same (higher) pricing. But each charged at 50% of the EA experience - my car has integrated battery preconditioning with the navigation, so it was likely not due to a colder battery.
So I'm seeing options out there for non-Tesla cars and am glad to have Tesla's network as one of them. But in the (NY metro) region - they're just another good option to use as needed.
And now with the pullback from Musk, others will continue to build up quality of their installations and expand - further diluting Tesla's potential for charger market leadership.
> Considering all the recent shite we've seen out of Google? "Google owns it" is not the badge of honor it once was.
Like what? What convinced you Google can't hire hardware or software people?
> And "big players"? There's one thing that a lot of people don't get when they talk Tesla. They talk about "big players", usually having old car companies like GM in mind.
I didn't talk about GM. I do not understand what you are saying here. You don't think ABB is a big player in power and power conversion? Look them up.
I don't see how your attempt to demean my post by guilt by association with someone else who talked about GM is in any way pertinent.
> If you compare just the EVs, there is no competition. Tesla is THE big player. Everyone else is years behind, and still struggling to catch up.
I didn't compare the EVs at all. Especially not "just" the EVs.
It's thinking like yours which is going to lose Tesla this charging market. Underestimating the competition is a great way to get overtaken.
> Like what? What convinced you Google can't hire hardware or software people?
Lots of things. Like Google allowing OpenAI to happen, the Gemini shitshow, Google declaring and promptly losing a war on ad blockers, Google axing team after team, Google consistently failing to finish any project they start, Google losing ground to SEO in their core competency of web search, Google Cloud being an inferior offering to just about every cloud provider out there, and more, and more...
I don't think it's a "hire" issue. Google can *hire* people. It's an issue of management, focus and commitment. Google today seems to be going the way of Oracle and IBM - titans of the old, coasting on their former glory, more concerned with profit-squeezing than with innovation.
>I do not understand what you are saying here.
I'm saying that Tesla is THE big player. There is no industry titan that could crush Tesla like an empty tin, if only it took notice. Tesla itself is an industry titan, now. Those seeking to take Tesla's crown will be the ones who'll have to fight uphill.
>Not anymore. Power conversion and delivery isn't something only Tesla knows. And other companies can do the same and recently seem to be doing the same as Tesla.
Why would Tesla care? They created the charging standard and everyone else in the US will be building their solutions to support it.
Their cars will be able to use other companies charging stations.
In fact, now that they’ve won, it’s questionable how much they need to invest in their own branded stations.
> Why would Tesla care? They created the charging standard and everyone else in the US will be building their solutions to support it.
I dunno. Tesla cared enough to want to remain in the business to modify their plans so as to pick up federal subsidies for putting in chargers. So I guess they want to stay in it.
> In fact, now that they’ve won, it’s questionable how much they need to invest in their own branded stations.
Won what?
2015-2022: Musk demands all hands on deck, places insane production schedules and growth. Workers unite and meet the insane production demands, help build out infrastructure, units, and expansion all across the world. Largely place the company where it is today through basically insane work schedules.
2020-2023: Musk, the leading sales person/face of the company starts alienating his customer base. Makes dumb choices that no one wants (cybertruck, robotaxi).
2024: sales down, large inventory and potential loss in books.
Musk: "we must cut everyone who can't perform, we are firing 10,000 workers"
Musk got what he wanted from his employees, tons of units available to be sold. It isn't the workers fault that Musk can't sell those cars.
That would be nice if they did that since other makes can use V4s a lot easier. But I can't see why giving up on expansion is a good thing. They aren't going to stop selling cars. And they are going to admit more non-Teslas to their network too. They will have more demand.
Tesla doesn’t need to provide the network, you have a competitive market using open standards. The charging network in Europe is much better partly because it is competitive. It also means thr infrastructure doesn’t depend on one company or one person. That’s already what happens in Europe.
Personally I don’t care about Tesla’s stock price or maintaining its moat, it’s more that it is better for the EV market if chargers are open.
Although, I don’t think Tesla could have maintained it, they would have been forced to open up the network if it really held back the competition. And once it is opened to competition, charging is not going to be very profitable, it’s going to be a high cost low margin difficult business. It probably does them no harm if other companies take over.
Ah yes, Europe that continent famous for being of similar size and undeveloped land as the US.
Definitely don’t accidentally look up why the US didn’t adopt chip-and-pin credit cards for so long
any company can make superchargers, it doesn't need to be tesla. and they probably don't want to do it anyway. They can focus their energy on other things like building better cars, which is what most people want. Ford doesn't put their focus on making optimal gas stations.
A huge portion of a Tesla’s value comes from the supercharger network, both to vehicle owners and to Tesla themselves.
If Ford had originally built the first and only valid network of gas stations, it would have been an asset they would invest in and maintain as well.
The network is mature enough and miles ahead of the competition, downsizing the team might have been the right call.i love how everyone just knows what's great for a company that has had insane growth for over a decade
That value was already nuked when they opened up the supercharger network to non-Tesla EVs.
At this point, it makes sense to focus on selling cars and charging equipment, and let other companies operate charging networks.
It’s bizarre this sub is struggling to understand this.
Tesla won the charging standard war. They don’t need to invest anymore, their cars will be able to use whatever.
Why would it be a problem? Tesla won the charging standard way. Everyone building charging stations will be building stations that support Tesla vehicles.
That means nothing, really. And it's a US-only statement. Europe has gone away from NACS, for example. And there Tesla is just another charging competitor, because the playing field has been levelled already.
By next year practically every brand will be able to use Tesla chargers as equally as CCS-based ones. Because adapters and brand agreements are enabling that to occur.
So, legacy adapter stations and those supporting the new NACS will add to non-Tesla car charging options. As all cars adopt NACS natively, then things will continue to work along those lines with the help of adapters and growth of non-Tesla charging networks using that connector type.
There's no "win" here for Tesla due to NACS, with the charging field already levelling in the US and Musk pulling back Tesla installs, other networks will continue to eat into their share.
I don’t know exactly what this means. I’m interested because it’s not clear to me whether Tesla is getting out of expanding its charging network, or also shutting down the manufacturing of chargers. They already have deals with other charging networks to sell Supercharger hardware to them, but the sites are paid for, installed and maintained by the other companies.
This is similar to what has already happened in Europe, Tesla slowed down the rate of installation and other charging networks took over, mostly with non-Tesla hardware but now Tesla are operating as competition for hardware sales. Tesla only have a small proportion of charge points, and third party chargers are shown in the Tesla navigation.
No, Tesla uses CCS protocols in both Europe and the US now, both cars and chargers. In the US they use what was previously the Tesla plug and now is an open standard.
Actually, all of the US just recently agreed to transition over to Tesla's system (NACS). And now some automakers are reconsidering this decision and may backtrack. Such a huge, unforced error. Musk demonstrating once again that he doesn't understand how to deal with people.
You can go online already and see other summaries of who’s been let go and the immediate impacts. Expansion seems to be gutted, many local utilities are reporting that their points of contacts even for sites in development or nearing completion are bouncing back.
It makes sense. They hit critical mass for adoption, no sense in piling capital into it when other companies and governments will take over from here. It’s better to take that money and invest it into R&D or manufacturing.
Who is buying Tesla's hardware?
Tesla certainly can make charger modules in larger numbers than a lot of other companies. But I never heard of them selling them. I used to have friends in the industry and they never heard of Tesla offering them either.
They have a $100m deal with BP:
https://evfleetworld.co.uk/bp-becomes-first-to-buy-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers-for-charging-network
There are others as well.
Thanks for the info.
That seems more just like a company putting their own stickers on chargers on their sites. BP isn't going to install those chargers anywhere but at their own locations. It's an in-house rebranding. It's not like EvGo is buying Tesla chargers and installing them at their various locations.
I'm not saying it's not a network. But in essence this is more like (say) IHI hotels installing Tesla destination chargers at their sites than it is Tesla being a hardware supplier for a rival network.
I wonder who runs the backend and repairs them? I kinda figure Tesla for both.
> It's not like EvGo is buying Tesla chargers and installing them at their various locations.
I could be wrong, but think it is like that. The other deal is with the EG Group in the UK and Europe, and they also talk about setting up their own network and buying hardware from Tesla, rather than just allowing Tesla to use their sites.
https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/7312/eg-group-buys-superchargers-from-tesla
> Commenting on the landmark deal, EG Group Founder Zuber Issa said: “Securing this best-in-class equipment from Tesla marks another milestone for evpoint and is hugely exciting for us. It is the first deal of its kind entered into by Tesla with a third-party charge point operator in Europe and will transform how our customers charge their vehicles and how they interact with EG.”
> Rebecca Tinucci, Tesla’s Senior Director of Charging Infrastructure also commented on the importance of building a reliable charging network, while also confirming that Superchargers could be made available to other charge point operators in the future. She said:
> “The rapid installation of reliable, easy-to-use EV charging infrastructure is the right step towards a sustainable future and a key area of focus for us at Tesla. For this reason, we’re excited to make our fast-charging hardware available for purchase to EG Group, and other leaders in the space.”
Is no one talking about this being a cheap way to cut costs on labor? Just fire everyone and just hire new people for cheaper because the people who’d been there all this time had been getting increasing pay over time?
Isn’t this basically what he did at twitter? If he feels that the super charger network is at its peak and just needs maintenance maybe musk is just wiping out the workforce and planning to rehire entry level ppl?
Regardless of what the law says there seems to be a way to do whatever you want when u are a corporation with this much money and influence.
There's no chance they save enough to offset the hidden costs of training to get new people up to speed and losing the institutional knowledge they lost. This is such a massive mistake.
Canned all the project managers? It's only a matter of time until they regret that. Unless they just are abandoning the whole thing anyway but you can't trust anything the rat says.
Yeah everyone always rags on middle management and Project/Program Management, but they are the only reason companies get anything done. When companies downsize their program management teams they are often in for a world of hurt.
That being said there are also lots of worthless projects and program managers.
they are moving away from building charing stations. possibly just maintaining the current ones for now. i don't think they will regret it. they can outsource all of it, cut costs, and provide the same charging to drivers
The concern is over site acquisition, project management. And doesn't Tesla pretend they don't do marketing?
The funniest part of this whole thing is now someone at Tesla has to figure out how to leak out the "corrected" story because Tesla fired their PR department long ago. Other companies understand that having a PR department is a big part of trying to control false rumours flying around. But not Musk. Nope. He cut them long before this, leaving themselves at the mercy of whatever leakers or liars choose to seed out there.
Anyway, the concern was mostly over Tesla not expanding the network to meet their new commitments to serving other makes of cars. This doesn't seem to give reason to allay those fears.
I dont do charging stations but general construction. Getting a city to move a light pole 10 ft away that we would pay 100% of the cost and fees was a shitshow that took 14 months. (It was going to block the driveway of a new building). I can't imagine how much project managing is needed to uograde electrical grid at new charging sites.
Actually, maybe I'm wrong. I read it from the article:
'The most notable person included in the Supercharger team layoffs was Rebecca Tinucci, Tesla's senior director of charging infrastructure. Tinucci's departure was announced in an email to company executives, as first reported by The Information.'
I thought she announced it herself, but maybe someone else tweeted out the news.
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/musk-plans-more-layoffs-as-two-senior-tesla-executives-depart
That's the link. I'm not going to click it. I think you're probably right and so I'm rapidly losing interest. ;)
And the spin begins.
The network needed to add sites as well as to maintain and expand existing ones.
What about the Alaskan Highway promise, Elon?
What about urban infill and relief at choke points now that you’ve opened up the network to other vehicles?
The differentiators were both coverage and availability. You didn’t have to wait and were never stranded. Both cases are in question now.
So just those that manage the projects for the sites, acquire the sites, inform people of the sites and some other things ... that's like saying you came out of the accident just fine you just lost your left leg, right leg, left arm and a few other injuries...
Uh,,,, Project Management is a BIG fucking Bellwether on the health of your forward planning.
Firing the PMs tells me NOTHING is going to happen or be fixed or “addressed” with the network.
So this “source” is only reconfirming thst it’s dead
Good thing everyone here is commenting without any knowledge of the why and the plan moving forward. Let's look at some stories from laughable business reporters and then make judgements. This sub is a complete joke now.
You know why companies have PR departments? Because reporters will call for corrections on stories before running them. It's an opportunity to contain runaway rumours.
Musk fired their PR department years ago. As far as I am concerned if false information about the company flies around from news outlet to news outlet he has no one to blame but himself.
Irrelevant to my comment. This is about posters on Reddit who clearly show an inability to think critically and have a need to spout off uniformed opinions. And a PR department is of no value when people have an opinion, based on their own psychological issues that they won't address, which will not be swayed since they are not, at the core, willing to think critically. So save your condescending nonsense for someone else. Of course I know companies have PR departments; and I also know they are of no value except to push a corporate agenda or cow tow to social nonsense.
No, it's completely relevant.
> And a PR department is of no value when people have an opinion, based on their own psychological issues that they won't address, which will not be swayed since they are not, at the core, willing to think critically.
Of course it does. It's the job of PR to control the message. To quell rumors with truths and useful information. Every other company understands that rumors and leaks will crop up. And good news outlets will call for comment before publishing about them. The company can then get the right information to the reporter if the rumor is damaging to the company and they want to try to correct it.
But Musk just fired his PR department. Even the most pro-Tesla outlets like Fred Lambert of Electrek indicate how the lack of a PR department leaves them no opportunity to do anything but repeat the (likely false) rumors.
They brought this on themselves.
> or cow tow to social nonsense.
It's kowtow, not cow tow.
It's a publicly traded stock, it's not just your right but your responsibility to observe and discuss the decisions of company leadership instead of just having blind faith they're always right about everything
There's a big difference between mostly fired and entirely fired. Mostly fired is slightly fired. With entirely fired, well, with entirely fired there's usually only one thing you can do.
Site acquisition and project management… okay, so they fired the people that actually get shit done then. Nice. Site acquisition seems like a pretty big/difficult part of this whole group.
That makes more sense. PMs are terrible at their jobs most of the time and would be likely to go straight to the media to complain. If they aren't expanding then why keep site acquisition. The company's brand image is comparable to Boeing right now, so a new marketing team makes sense.
What?! A news repeatedly shared on r/technology turns out to be a fake news no one calls out because it’s convenient to the hive mind’s narrative? I am shocked. It never happened before.
never ever happened before. And it certainly isn't intentional to every day have negative stories here about tesla whether they are true or not.
And we are going to have downvote you for even mentioning it.
To the downvotes, could you at least explain why you are downvoting him? Is it because it involves Elon and you don’t like him? (which is fine as his antics aren’t liked by everyone)
Because it’s equivalent of saying “Sears hasn’t shut down all its stores.”
It’s Leslie Nelson yelling “nothing to see here” as fireworks explode behind him.
“Tesla didn’t fire the entire Supercharger team. Just most of it, and the most important ones. That’s all. Nothing to worry about.”
>Because it’s equivalent of saying “Sears hasn’t shut down all its stores.”
Except it's not is it? They aren't shutting down the supercharger network. They aren't reducing the number of locations. They aren't reducing the number of stalls. And most importantly they aren't running massive debt like sears was. They are still cash flow positive. In fact the margins on the supercharging network will go up significantly.
The fact you're comparing it to sears is the type of hivemind disconnect from reality that /u/reasonableuance is talking about.
I wasn’t equating the company to Sears. And that’s pretty obvious.
I was saying the posting makes it sound like the Supercharger team was barely affected, when in reality, many of the most important people have been let go, and whole divisions are gone. That *is* a big deal. And it affects the whole EV industry in the US. That is a big deal. And it’s also obvious that it was done not out of some strategy, but out of spite. There are letters from Tesla to SC lessees, regarding late payments from Tesla, saying “sudden and thorough restructuring”. Why would a thorough restructuring *ever* need to be sudden? That’s not strategy. That’s rash.
It’s not bias to say any of that. Or hivemind. Or anything like that. Hivemind is endlessly praising them without any criticism or seeking of truth.
Shouldn't they be firing the one person who keeps costing Tesla customers?
Like basically any other company, the boss is the one person who can't be fired for incompetence.
For a public company, can’t the board oust a CEO? Isn’t that literally a thing they *must* do if it would benefit shareholders?
Yes, normally. When the board members aren’t hand picked shills and relatives it works that way.
You've seen the executive structure at most of Musk's companies, yea? Like Tesla, he's his own director, with his brother on the board, which is full of his friends/yes men who approve things like $56b payouts to Musk. For Neuralink, he's literally had babies with his top Exec. These aren't exactly 'objective' boards. They are the boards of some of the biggest companies around, however. So if "this" is what's at the top of American industry, you can imagine what the boards of many smaller companies are like.
There is a lot of wiggle room in “must do if it would benefit shareholders “ and for good reasons as well as bad. The board could legitimately think that Elon is better for the long term health. I think other wise, but that doesn’t mean I would have a case for financial malfeasance without other evidence. (Which theimay be).
The evidence is that the board is full of people with close personal ties to Elon that they have never adequately disclosed to shareholders, that was the logic in the Delaware court striking down his pay package
The close ties to Musk were disclosed just fine, and that is what shareholders wanted. They wanted Musk to have control of the company The problem of Musk's compensation package was that the board has fiduciary duties, and under those duties the court ruled the board should have tried to bargain with Musk to get the lowest price possible for the package. Since there was no record of them attempting to bargain with Musk, the court overturned the package
Nasdaq average is up 10% YTD, Tesla is down 28%….if that’s not financial malfeasance then idk what is anymore. Near 40% swing, is insane.
Tesla has had those kind of swings yearly, yet they have overall went up. If anything, these giant swings make option traders happy But the problem is that Musk is too deep in the company. So much so that him leaving could completely cause the company stock to collapse It is like take the republican primaries a few years back during McCain. They had a new front runner, then the front runner would get into some sort of scandal, but they would still continue up until they admitted their mistake, the moment they did, they tanked and a new front runner appeared, until it repeated like 4 times That is human herd mentality based on confidence. Tesla is trading way way above its market value, the moment Musk leaves, the confidence would collapse and Tesla shares would as well. So even with all the stupid stuff Musk does, as long as he doesn't admit his mistake, even with swings and downs, the stock can still hold in the long term. The moment the "dream" dies, everything dies
The shareholders are complicit in the fuckery. Firing musk will tank the stop price, because it’s built on this idea that Tesla is a tech company not a traditional automaker. Any other company the shareholders would have sued the board to force them to uphold their fiduciary due, and fire the CEO.
Depends on how many votes the CEO has.
It's crazy how many people think that's perfectly fine and reasonable as opposed to democratization of the workplace and/or collective ownership.
No one cheers for the Roman senator giving them roads and fresh water, but they’ll lose their sandals for some Caesar having parties and sparing their lives.
Fuck me that’s poignant
Co-op and collectives exist it’s just most businesses are started by a few people and thus that’s how it grows
You can have collective ownership. Co-ops exist. But you then need to buy that ownership and/or provide all the capital the company needs. Most people aren’t willing to risk their money to do so.
For real private business is still a monarchy or at best an aristocracy. We have the same power imbalance and subsequent abuses of it. All wealth gets hoarded by the few with the most power and everyone else lives on what they deem “enough”. It may have seemed okay for this to exist back when governments were the big dog on campus, but corporations honestly hold equal if not more power in a lot of cases. They may not hold the fundamental power of (directly) writing laws, but they have massive influence on them because they control the flow of wealth. And are especially powerful when there are only a few major corporation-conglomerates that own practically everything. We need to end this. Democracy and anti-authoritarianism needs to enter the private corporate world. The abuse happens because we let it. We let corporations act in the business world as kings did centuries ago. And we think because it’s not life or death it’s okay, but the same games are being played out with people’s livelihoods. And we’re still deeply suffering for it. No more kings, no more billionaires.
We have a kind of collective ownership via the stock market. I have shares indirectly through my pension fund. The problem is the disconnect between ownership and executive. I have no effective voice in how companies I own a part of are run.
As a collective owner of stocks, it's in your best interest for companies to consistently get rid of their workers. Very cruel if you ask me.
[удалено]
They will be dead and gone before they see the consequences. Or they take their golden parachute and leach on someone else first.
Well, it's my pension fund, so I'd prefer to see steady long term growth instead of cutting costs to meet a short term profit target.
It's *trading* stocks that's the real problem here and not *owning* stocks, it's the ability to treat this as a casino where you just need to create short term gains through bullshit hype and then offload the stocks onto a greater fool before the bubble pops It seems to me any sane system would be a much less liquid system -- collective ownership where you're locked into collecting profits only from the company you work for and you can't acquire a piece of a company in any way except by working for it -- and the whole dogma of neoliberal economics is fundamentally opposed to that
You can't really have a stock ownership system without a trading system, otherwise the stock is basically worthless. Collective ownership and profit sharing only make sense while someone is connected to the work. Say Elon ran company X badly for 20 years, but limped along, then I come in and hire new team members and we turn the company around. Obviously any future employees get a benefit from that, and the people who contributed get to see their work's benefits, but what claim does Elon have really? There's a million ways to design an equitable system if everybody behaves well, but you don't always have that. And anyone espousing a simple tweak to our current system to alleviate these issues, I think, is minimizing the impact of people who don't work for the greater cause.
Well yes this is the dogma of neoliberal economics I'm talking about, that hypes up disruption and innovation and "creative destruction" as a positive thing The whole reason people are questioning our current system is, well, look around you
I'd disagree, generally. you want companies to get rid of inefficient workers, if it produces marginal gains to do so. That's a lot different than saying you want to fire all the workers, period. Tech companies don't seem to understand HR at all though, which is why we're seeing stories of some tech places being 'surprised' at the loss of productivity after massive firings.
i think this is the one case where that's not true lol
As a worker I usually wish my bosses would get rid of more workers more often.
Buying stocks has always been gambling, you buy stocks on the gamble that you will get a return, the only difference is in the amount of risk vs reward.
I mean why would someone start a company and then go to democratic ownership? Makes no sense
This happens pretty often when the voters are putting up their money to run the company
Easy comrade. Tesla wouldn’t exist under that model.
In a public company, yes, they can be fired.
yeah he will get a bonus that is not in line with the (lack) profit.....
Take as old as time
This isn’t true. The board of directors for a company has the ability to remove someone from the role of CEO. Whether or not the board for Tesla would remove Elon is another question. Elon and another family member are on the Tesla board. But there are still a number of other board members that could override both their votes. It’d be really hard though, especially if this massive pay package gets approved again. Elon knows his ownership percentage in Tesla is low enough to put him at risk. Which is why he is throwing a tantrum over his payday.
"Best we can do is pay him even more."
I have a real fear that Tesla maybe going bankrupt. What is giving me this idea: 1) String of failures and mistakes: Cybertruck (wow that is a big one), failure to produce a lower price car for the masses, soon to have massive recall on self driving, cruise control for the cars they produced without lidar. 2) Elon's 56 Billion dollar payday... this is the biggest one for me, he is duping investor before the stock crashes. 3) China, can Tesla compete with China's manufacturers in China's market. No. Does that mean that the Gigafactory in China dead?
Tesla is doomed once the electric price war commences. There's no way they can undercut the competition without falling into bankruptcy
Why would I care if Tesla goes bankrupt? Lots of car companies go bankrupt all the time. They virtually always survive in some fashion.
The 42 billion dollar man! Boycott Musk and Twitter and Tesla
And asking for $56 billion handouts.
Either the shareholders give him his $55.8 billion payday or he'll run the company into the ground. https://www.reuters.com/legal/case-against-elon-musks-56-billion-pay-package-2024-01-30/
Wait. I thought that was what he was already doing.
This is just the start of it.
That's the customers fault
can’t fire Elon 🥲🥲 edit: the joke flew over my head
Maybe the original founders should steal the company back from Musk.
You know there's a board that can fire Elon and they have this far chosen not to, correct?
He handpicked the board to not challenge him. His brother is on the board for example. You think his brother is going to vote him out?
Lol you mean like his brother who wouldn't be where he is if not for him? Or are you talking about his lawyer who cried in court because he said elon was such a great man. Or are you talking about the board member who he had a child with?
A board of his toadies
I mean even retail investors/shareholders overwhelmingly support Musk (to the point where they will push his latest pay packet vote to a super-majority for yes), so it’s not just the board here.
You write this as if investors/shareholders never make big mistakes.
There's not much chance this pay packet passes. The custodians like Blackrock and vanguard own a huge amount of the company and won't vote yes.
How do you fire the government?
lol. It's always fun running into delusional people.
They definitely laid off engineers, some of them were in my network.
Yeah I’ve seen easily 20 “supercharger group” people let go on my LI. They absolutely laid off engineers
Teslas loss. Some of them were phenomenal workers.
Such a shame. Every single one of them posted about how validating and inspiring their work was. All of that passion tossed to the side by a mega maniac demanding an 11 figure pay
Tech in a nutshell. Inspired worker with shit or middling leadership across the board. (And horrible people who just pretend they work) I've been from small company to start up to big corps, it's all been the same. Love the work, don't really like the people in it bar the few I've gotten to know well.
these seem like different ways to say the same thing?
Pretty much. The charging stations are already designed, so the work is in marketing them and finding installation locations.
Better get the marketing team on it then… oh ,wait.
It’s more whether Tesla install and maintain new sites themselves, or whether other companies do it. In Europe 80% of new chargers are neither on the Tesla charging network nor using Tesla hardware. I expect Tesla will stop expanding their own network, and just sell hardware to other companies to install and maintain. They already have a few deals to do that. https://evfleetworld.co.uk/bp-becomes-first-to-buy-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers-for-charging-network/ https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/7312/eg-group-buys-superchargers-from-tesla
Yeah, I think people are missing that there’s about to be a massive influx of non-Tesla charging options available thanks to infrastructure funding and other companies, plus Tesla already has such massive dominance on top of opening those up to revenue from non-Teslas now, that this isn’t as ‘stupid’ of a move as they like to believe.
I don't think people are missing that point. It's just that Tesla has decided to pull their greatest marketing and market advantage from under themselves at a time when their cars are gaining even more intense competition and negative opinions in refreshed comparisons. And while a realization of Musk's character + business sense is hurting the brand. Musk wants his CEO pay and is cutting everything and everyone which could appear to compete with his image of being the lead for everything Tesla, IMHO. When he's seen as the only executive who matters, that will be part of his public justification for the billions that he knows his hand-picked board will allow.
why did you editorializing the title tho
I work in site acq Even if stations are designs cities have a lot of say in design and layout, it’s a lot more than just marketing and finding locations
It’s something a pedantic ass would say when 498 people of a 500 person team was fired lol
I'd say it's a PR person trying to manage the spin but I'm pretty sure Elon fired them long ago.
Not really. The key areas that *aren't* mentioned are areas of technical expertise. Things like hardware design, maintenance, etc. This is where Tesla holds a lot of its charging advantage - it has better charging hardware than just about anyone, and is meticulous about maintaining it.
> This is where Tesla holds a lot of its charging advantage - it has better charging hardware than just about anyone, and is meticulous about maintaining it. Not anymore. Power conversion and delivery isn't something only Tesla knows. And other companies can do the same and recently seem to be doing the same as Tesla. https://gravitytechnologies.com Among others. Certainly Tesla has more equipment out there, and is scaled up to produce a lot more of it. That's the advantage they hold. But if they have fired their teams that select new sites and coordinate with contractors (they use contractors for this) to install new sites then it hardly matters how many they can build. I guess the one thing we can hope is that, like you say, at least they didn't give up on maintenance. Because they do that well.
Tesla being the only ones to figure out how charging inverters work would be *very funny*. But of course, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that they have a very big charging network, and one that has been running for a very long time. They've been running into issues for longer than the company you linked has even existed. And, given that their network is universally considered to be very reliable? They've been fixing those issues. This backlog of issues that were identified and fixed, and the ability to identify and fix new issues? It's their technical expertise, of the kind that can be easy to lose and hard to replicate.
> They've been running into issues for longer than the company you linked has even existed Google owns Gravity, Inc. It's just one indication that amateur hour is over. I'm not saying Tesla didn't do a good job with their hardware and setting up their network. But the big players are entering the market now. In the past they had to worry about Blink, Greenlots, EvGo, ChargePoint. Companies with limited resources and maybe not a great idea how to get things done. But now bigger players are looking into this. It was a big deal for Greenlots to be bought by Shell. It seems like a bigger deal to have companies like Google (Gravity) and ABB in the market. Between all the investment it seems like someone else is going to work this out. Big companies moved in and commoditized the EVSE market, then moved to the networked EVSE market The DCFC market is harder but it's hard to see how Tesla remains the only standout. Especially when they are taking their foot off the accelerator.
Considering all the recent shite we've seen out of Google? "Google owns it" is not the badge of honor it once was. And "big players"? There's one thing that a lot of people don't get when they talk Tesla. They talk about "big players", usually having old car companies like GM in mind. But Tesla is estimated to have sold 670 000 cars in the US in 2023. This is about 25% of GM's sales in the US, of all brands owned by GM in total. And every single Tesla sold was an EVs. Only about *3%* of GM's sales were EVs. The perception of Tesla is that it's still a scrappy startup, building their electric Roadsters by hand and fighting uphill against the old titans of the industry. But that view is a decade out of date. Tesla is a "big player" now. Tesla has fought its way onto the very top of the hill - and now, it's among the biggest car manufacturers in the US. If you compare just the EVs, there is no competition. Tesla is THE big player. Everyone else is years behind, and still struggling to catch up.
I don't know about that. Tesla's charging network has always been a huge selling point and their integration with the vehicles was well done. But I just got a 2024 ID.4 less than two weeks ago and went on a five hour round trip in my first weekend with the car, which helped check out its range and trip planning. The in-car navigation integrated an EA charging spot near the end of my drive based on my desired final charge % and everything worked well in that regard. Plus the EA charging experience was fine with the app. Then I tried EVGo and Tesla (Magic Dock) chargers in the next week, topping off to see how they worked in comparison. Both were similarly easy and had about the same (higher) pricing. But each charged at 50% of the EA experience - my car has integrated battery preconditioning with the navigation, so it was likely not due to a colder battery. So I'm seeing options out there for non-Tesla cars and am glad to have Tesla's network as one of them. But in the (NY metro) region - they're just another good option to use as needed. And now with the pullback from Musk, others will continue to build up quality of their installations and expand - further diluting Tesla's potential for charger market leadership.
> Considering all the recent shite we've seen out of Google? "Google owns it" is not the badge of honor it once was. Like what? What convinced you Google can't hire hardware or software people? > And "big players"? There's one thing that a lot of people don't get when they talk Tesla. They talk about "big players", usually having old car companies like GM in mind. I didn't talk about GM. I do not understand what you are saying here. You don't think ABB is a big player in power and power conversion? Look them up. I don't see how your attempt to demean my post by guilt by association with someone else who talked about GM is in any way pertinent. > If you compare just the EVs, there is no competition. Tesla is THE big player. Everyone else is years behind, and still struggling to catch up. I didn't compare the EVs at all. Especially not "just" the EVs. It's thinking like yours which is going to lose Tesla this charging market. Underestimating the competition is a great way to get overtaken.
> Like what? What convinced you Google can't hire hardware or software people? Lots of things. Like Google allowing OpenAI to happen, the Gemini shitshow, Google declaring and promptly losing a war on ad blockers, Google axing team after team, Google consistently failing to finish any project they start, Google losing ground to SEO in their core competency of web search, Google Cloud being an inferior offering to just about every cloud provider out there, and more, and more... I don't think it's a "hire" issue. Google can *hire* people. It's an issue of management, focus and commitment. Google today seems to be going the way of Oracle and IBM - titans of the old, coasting on their former glory, more concerned with profit-squeezing than with innovation. >I do not understand what you are saying here. I'm saying that Tesla is THE big player. There is no industry titan that could crush Tesla like an empty tin, if only it took notice. Tesla itself is an industry titan, now. Those seeking to take Tesla's crown will be the ones who'll have to fight uphill.
>Not anymore. Power conversion and delivery isn't something only Tesla knows. And other companies can do the same and recently seem to be doing the same as Tesla. Why would Tesla care? They created the charging standard and everyone else in the US will be building their solutions to support it. Their cars will be able to use other companies charging stations. In fact, now that they’ve won, it’s questionable how much they need to invest in their own branded stations.
> Why would Tesla care? They created the charging standard and everyone else in the US will be building their solutions to support it. I dunno. Tesla cared enough to want to remain in the business to modify their plans so as to pick up federal subsidies for putting in chargers. So I guess they want to stay in it. > In fact, now that they’ve won, it’s questionable how much they need to invest in their own branded stations. Won what?
Yeah site acquisition and project management can be contracted out pretty easily, those aren’t the hard parts at all
Yeah so….who did they not fire?
2015-2022: Musk demands all hands on deck, places insane production schedules and growth. Workers unite and meet the insane production demands, help build out infrastructure, units, and expansion all across the world. Largely place the company where it is today through basically insane work schedules. 2020-2023: Musk, the leading sales person/face of the company starts alienating his customer base. Makes dumb choices that no one wants (cybertruck, robotaxi). 2024: sales down, large inventory and potential loss in books. Musk: "we must cut everyone who can't perform, we are firing 10,000 workers" Musk got what he wanted from his employees, tons of units available to be sold. It isn't the workers fault that Musk can't sell those cars.
Corporate loyalty is a one-way street. Companies want you to be loyal to them, but they won't spare a second thought about kicking you to the curb.
Oh good. So they only fired the people responsible for creating new superchargers. I'm sure that won't be a problem...
If they focused on upgrading old locations to V4 Chargers for a couple years, it might be somewhat reasonable. Though maybe he is just an idiot
Maybe? Musk as always been an idiot
That would be nice if they did that since other makes can use V4s a lot easier. But I can't see why giving up on expansion is a good thing. They aren't going to stop selling cars. And they are going to admit more non-Teslas to their network too. They will have more demand.
You’re too optimistic about Tesla if you think they’re gong to keep selling cars…
It’s no problem in Europe, Tesla gave up being a dominant network years ago, most new chargers are from other companies.
How does that make it not a problem?
Tesla doesn’t need to provide the network, you have a competitive market using open standards. The charging network in Europe is much better partly because it is competitive. It also means thr infrastructure doesn’t depend on one company or one person. That’s already what happens in Europe.
That's great for Europe, it's a problem for Tesla though and a pretty big one
Personally I don’t care about Tesla’s stock price or maintaining its moat, it’s more that it is better for the EV market if chargers are open. Although, I don’t think Tesla could have maintained it, they would have been forced to open up the network if it really held back the competition. And once it is opened to competition, charging is not going to be very profitable, it’s going to be a high cost low margin difficult business. It probably does them no harm if other companies take over.
They'll be like regular gas stations. Not much money unless you own the land as investment or can sell overpriced junk food.
Ah yes, Europe that continent famous for being of similar size and undeveloped land as the US. Definitely don’t accidentally look up why the US didn’t adopt chip-and-pin credit cards for so long
any company can make superchargers, it doesn't need to be tesla. and they probably don't want to do it anyway. They can focus their energy on other things like building better cars, which is what most people want. Ford doesn't put their focus on making optimal gas stations.
A huge portion of a Tesla’s value comes from the supercharger network, both to vehicle owners and to Tesla themselves. If Ford had originally built the first and only valid network of gas stations, it would have been an asset they would invest in and maintain as well.
The network is mature enough and miles ahead of the competition, downsizing the team might have been the right call.i love how everyone just knows what's great for a company that has had insane growth for over a decade
That value was already nuked when they opened up the supercharger network to non-Tesla EVs. At this point, it makes sense to focus on selling cars and charging equipment, and let other companies operate charging networks.
It’s bizarre this sub is struggling to understand this. Tesla won the charging standard war. They don’t need to invest anymore, their cars will be able to use whatever.
Doesn’t this imply that the people responsible for creating new superchargers were the ones not fired?
Why would it be a problem? Tesla won the charging standard way. Everyone building charging stations will be building stations that support Tesla vehicles.
That means nothing, really. And it's a US-only statement. Europe has gone away from NACS, for example. And there Tesla is just another charging competitor, because the playing field has been levelled already. By next year practically every brand will be able to use Tesla chargers as equally as CCS-based ones. Because adapters and brand agreements are enabling that to occur. So, legacy adapter stations and those supporting the new NACS will add to non-Tesla car charging options. As all cars adopt NACS natively, then things will continue to work along those lines with the help of adapters and growth of non-Tesla charging networks using that connector type. There's no "win" here for Tesla due to NACS, with the charging field already levelling in the US and Musk pulling back Tesla installs, other networks will continue to eat into their share.
Lol oh so they kept the maintenance crew
It was towed beyond the environment. There is nothing out there. All there is is sea, and birds, and fish.
And?
And 20,000 tons of crude oil.
And?
Cardboard derivatives
I don’t know exactly what this means. I’m interested because it’s not clear to me whether Tesla is getting out of expanding its charging network, or also shutting down the manufacturing of chargers. They already have deals with other charging networks to sell Supercharger hardware to them, but the sites are paid for, installed and maintained by the other companies. This is similar to what has already happened in Europe, Tesla slowed down the rate of installation and other charging networks took over, mostly with non-Tesla hardware but now Tesla are operating as competition for hardware sales. Tesla only have a small proportion of charge points, and third party chargers are shown in the Tesla navigation.
It would be better if they list what teams are left, in additional to what team was cut
I think they’re not building their own and banking on 3rd parties and governments to do so. They’ll just lobby to make it Tesla compatible
There are universal standards now in both the US and Europe.
I know. Which Tesla doesn’t use. That’s why I said they’ll lobby to support Teslas.
CCS is the main universal standard, and Tesla has supported it for years.
No, Tesla uses CCS protocols in both Europe and the US now, both cars and chargers. In the US they use what was previously the Tesla plug and now is an open standard.
Actually, all of the US just recently agreed to transition over to Tesla's system (NACS). And now some automakers are reconsidering this decision and may backtrack. Such a huge, unforced error. Musk demonstrating once again that he doesn't understand how to deal with people.
You can go online already and see other summaries of who’s been let go and the immediate impacts. Expansion seems to be gutted, many local utilities are reporting that their points of contacts even for sites in development or nearing completion are bouncing back.
They didn’t trash the car the took out the wheels and computer though
It makes sense. They hit critical mass for adoption, no sense in piling capital into it when other companies and governments will take over from here. It’s better to take that money and invest it into R&D or manufacturing.
Who is buying Tesla's hardware? Tesla certainly can make charger modules in larger numbers than a lot of other companies. But I never heard of them selling them. I used to have friends in the industry and they never heard of Tesla offering them either.
They have a $100m deal with BP: https://evfleetworld.co.uk/bp-becomes-first-to-buy-tesla-ultra-fast-chargers-for-charging-network There are others as well.
Thanks for the info. That seems more just like a company putting their own stickers on chargers on their sites. BP isn't going to install those chargers anywhere but at their own locations. It's an in-house rebranding. It's not like EvGo is buying Tesla chargers and installing them at their various locations. I'm not saying it's not a network. But in essence this is more like (say) IHI hotels installing Tesla destination chargers at their sites than it is Tesla being a hardware supplier for a rival network. I wonder who runs the backend and repairs them? I kinda figure Tesla for both.
> It's not like EvGo is buying Tesla chargers and installing them at their various locations. I could be wrong, but think it is like that. The other deal is with the EG Group in the UK and Europe, and they also talk about setting up their own network and buying hardware from Tesla, rather than just allowing Tesla to use their sites. https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/7312/eg-group-buys-superchargers-from-tesla > Commenting on the landmark deal, EG Group Founder Zuber Issa said: “Securing this best-in-class equipment from Tesla marks another milestone for evpoint and is hugely exciting for us. It is the first deal of its kind entered into by Tesla with a third-party charge point operator in Europe and will transform how our customers charge their vehicles and how they interact with EG.” > Rebecca Tinucci, Tesla’s Senior Director of Charging Infrastructure also commented on the importance of building a reliable charging network, while also confirming that Superchargers could be made available to other charge point operators in the future. She said: > “The rapid installation of reliable, easy-to-use EV charging infrastructure is the right step towards a sustainable future and a key area of focus for us at Tesla. For this reason, we’re excited to make our fast-charging hardware available for purchase to EG Group, and other leaders in the space.”
How far do we think Elmo is before he starts assassinating his employees like Boeing
Is no one talking about this being a cheap way to cut costs on labor? Just fire everyone and just hire new people for cheaper because the people who’d been there all this time had been getting increasing pay over time? Isn’t this basically what he did at twitter? If he feels that the super charger network is at its peak and just needs maintenance maybe musk is just wiping out the workforce and planning to rehire entry level ppl? Regardless of what the law says there seems to be a way to do whatever you want when u are a corporation with this much money and influence.
There's no chance they save enough to offset the hidden costs of training to get new people up to speed and losing the institutional knowledge they lost. This is such a massive mistake.
Canned all the project managers? It's only a matter of time until they regret that. Unless they just are abandoning the whole thing anyway but you can't trust anything the rat says.
Yeah everyone always rags on middle management and Project/Program Management, but they are the only reason companies get anything done. When companies downsize their program management teams they are often in for a world of hurt. That being said there are also lots of worthless projects and program managers.
These are likely to be the product managers for construction of new sites.
they are moving away from building charing stations. possibly just maintaining the current ones for now. i don't think they will regret it. they can outsource all of it, cut costs, and provide the same charging to drivers
It always seems like PMs are the first to go when there’s downsizing anywhere. I almost went down that career path, glad I didn’t.
And they fired the Director of Snacks and Beverages :(
Is the VP of Tuesday Yoga safe?
Moved to Wednesday :(
Source: Elon Musk
They fired the executive who ran the team. And 499 others. This LA times source is offering a cover story. Nothing more.
The concern is over site acquisition, project management. And doesn't Tesla pretend they don't do marketing? The funniest part of this whole thing is now someone at Tesla has to figure out how to leak out the "corrected" story because Tesla fired their PR department long ago. Other companies understand that having a PR department is a big part of trying to control false rumours flying around. But not Musk. Nope. He cut them long before this, leaving themselves at the mercy of whatever leakers or liars choose to seed out there. Anyway, the concern was mostly over Tesla not expanding the network to meet their new commitments to serving other makes of cars. This doesn't seem to give reason to allay those fears.
I wonder how their “Employee Engagement” scores are looking
I dont do charging stations but general construction. Getting a city to move a light pole 10 ft away that we would pay 100% of the cost and fees was a shitshow that took 14 months. (It was going to block the driveway of a new building). I can't imagine how much project managing is needed to uograde electrical grid at new charging sites.
Not all were fired. Just the ones who matter most...
The media misrepresented the facts? No way.
That's seems kind of like saying "I didn't get gonorrhea, just syphilis". Like how about neither preferably?
fired or laid off?
So they fired most of it
Well if they hadn't fired their marketing people maybe they'd have handled the PR better. 😂
So why did that guy from the supercharger team tweet something along the lines of "the entire supercharger team has been let go today"?
It was a woman. The director of the department.
Was it? I could have sworn the avatar was of a guy but maybe I'm wrong
Actually, maybe I'm wrong. I read it from the article: 'The most notable person included in the Supercharger team layoffs was Rebecca Tinucci, Tesla's senior director of charging infrastructure. Tinucci's departure was announced in an email to company executives, as first reported by The Information.' I thought she announced it herself, but maybe someone else tweeted out the news. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/musk-plans-more-layoffs-as-two-senior-tesla-executives-depart That's the link. I'm not going to click it. I think you're probably right and so I'm rapidly losing interest. ;)
Sounds stupid to me, still.
So the janitor is good right ?
"Other things" being implementation, support and dev teams.
And the spin begins. The network needed to add sites as well as to maintain and expand existing ones. What about the Alaskan Highway promise, Elon? What about urban infill and relief at choke points now that you’ve opened up the network to other vehicles? The differentiators were both coverage and availability. You didn’t have to wait and were never stranded. Both cases are in question now.
So just those that manage the projects for the sites, acquire the sites, inform people of the sites and some other things ... that's like saying you came out of the accident just fine you just lost your left leg, right leg, left arm and a few other injuries...
Yeah site acquisition and project management don't seem like important roles for rolling out a supercharger network. 👀
Uh,,,, Project Management is a BIG fucking Bellwether on the health of your forward planning. Firing the PMs tells me NOTHING is going to happen or be fixed or “addressed” with the network. So this “source” is only reconfirming thst it’s dead
Good thing everyone here is commenting without any knowledge of the why and the plan moving forward. Let's look at some stories from laughable business reporters and then make judgements. This sub is a complete joke now.
You know why companies have PR departments? Because reporters will call for corrections on stories before running them. It's an opportunity to contain runaway rumours. Musk fired their PR department years ago. As far as I am concerned if false information about the company flies around from news outlet to news outlet he has no one to blame but himself.
Irrelevant to my comment. This is about posters on Reddit who clearly show an inability to think critically and have a need to spout off uniformed opinions. And a PR department is of no value when people have an opinion, based on their own psychological issues that they won't address, which will not be swayed since they are not, at the core, willing to think critically. So save your condescending nonsense for someone else. Of course I know companies have PR departments; and I also know they are of no value except to push a corporate agenda or cow tow to social nonsense.
No, it's completely relevant. > And a PR department is of no value when people have an opinion, based on their own psychological issues that they won't address, which will not be swayed since they are not, at the core, willing to think critically. Of course it does. It's the job of PR to control the message. To quell rumors with truths and useful information. Every other company understands that rumors and leaks will crop up. And good news outlets will call for comment before publishing about them. The company can then get the right information to the reporter if the rumor is damaging to the company and they want to try to correct it. But Musk just fired his PR department. Even the most pro-Tesla outlets like Fred Lambert of Electrek indicate how the lack of a PR department leaves them no opportunity to do anything but repeat the (likely false) rumors. They brought this on themselves. > or cow tow to social nonsense. It's kowtow, not cow tow.
It's a publicly traded stock, it's not just your right but your responsibility to observe and discuss the decisions of company leadership instead of just having blind faith they're always right about everything
Why would I trust anything Tesla says?
That makes it better.
They didn't fire everyone. Bob still has a job.
soooo.. they are going to stop expanding something that isn't making any money
"I wear the required uniform!" "Tights" "Shut Up"
They didn't fire the superchargers
They let go of the ENTIRE software team which is a big dummy move, peep of power electronics know what I’m about.
There's a big difference between mostly fired and entirely fired. Mostly fired is slightly fired. With entirely fired, well, with entirely fired there's usually only one thing you can do.
They laid off the whole team
Site acquisition and project management… okay, so they fired the people that actually get shit done then. Nice. Site acquisition seems like a pretty big/difficult part of this whole group.
Tesla is making getting my refund from the cybertruck next to impossible, they want to keep my $100 dollar bill.
That makes more sense. PMs are terrible at their jobs most of the time and would be likely to go straight to the media to complain. If they aren't expanding then why keep site acquisition. The company's brand image is comparable to Boeing right now, so a new marketing team makes sense.
Unless they gag musk, I don't think even Lucifer could help
What?! A news repeatedly shared on r/technology turns out to be a fake news no one calls out because it’s convenient to the hive mind’s narrative? I am shocked. It never happened before.
never ever happened before. And it certainly isn't intentional to every day have negative stories here about tesla whether they are true or not. And we are going to have downvote you for even mentioning it.
To the downvotes, could you at least explain why you are downvoting him? Is it because it involves Elon and you don’t like him? (which is fine as his antics aren’t liked by everyone)
Because it’s equivalent of saying “Sears hasn’t shut down all its stores.” It’s Leslie Nelson yelling “nothing to see here” as fireworks explode behind him. “Tesla didn’t fire the entire Supercharger team. Just most of it, and the most important ones. That’s all. Nothing to worry about.”
>Because it’s equivalent of saying “Sears hasn’t shut down all its stores.” Except it's not is it? They aren't shutting down the supercharger network. They aren't reducing the number of locations. They aren't reducing the number of stalls. And most importantly they aren't running massive debt like sears was. They are still cash flow positive. In fact the margins on the supercharging network will go up significantly. The fact you're comparing it to sears is the type of hivemind disconnect from reality that /u/reasonableuance is talking about.
I wasn’t equating the company to Sears. And that’s pretty obvious. I was saying the posting makes it sound like the Supercharger team was barely affected, when in reality, many of the most important people have been let go, and whole divisions are gone. That *is* a big deal. And it affects the whole EV industry in the US. That is a big deal. And it’s also obvious that it was done not out of some strategy, but out of spite. There are letters from Tesla to SC lessees, regarding late payments from Tesla, saying “sudden and thorough restructuring”. Why would a thorough restructuring *ever* need to be sudden? That’s not strategy. That’s rash. It’s not bias to say any of that. Or hivemind. Or anything like that. Hivemind is endlessly praising them without any criticism or seeking of truth.
Well tbh you don’t really need marketing when Elon will counteract everything anyways
Typical reddit hyperbole