One simple way this could really help is just in naming. Tesla Energy is sure to turn more heads than SolarCity as Tesla is a household name now that people generally have good associations with. SolarCity always sounded a bit generic.
On the other hand, Solar City reps harangue me to buy their product every time I go to Home Depot, and I see their trucks all over the road. I have no favorable impression of them either--I think "if solar is so great, why isn't my utility doing it, and why would I sign a long-term contract with some dude who hangs out at Home Depot and harasses people." But I don't see "Tesla Energy" having some kind of excellent brand equity.
For the same reason many market incumbents find themselves unable to innovate. It eats away their existing revenue streams or erodes the value of their current strategy.
If you've invested heavily in non-solar energy infrastructure and that's the majority of the market, you can either invest in solar and add it to the mix, in which case new demand may fall on it, but it's likely to also start eating your existing demand (there are renewable energy source mandates), or you can fight it and try to maximize your profits on what you have. One is a long term strategy, and one is a short term strategy, but not all companies (boards, shareholders) are focused on long term. e.g.
If Linux/UNIX is so great, why didn't Microsoft create a distro (a decade or two ago)? Or, if free software is so great, why don't Microsoft start giving away their software? Because, it makes them less money. It has nothing to do with what's better for the customers (presupposing either of those are better, for the sake of argument).
Actually, they did! Xenix was Microsoft's Unix distro, licensed and derived from AT&T's System V source.
During the late 1980s it was the most popular Unix variety of all, measured by number of installations.
But then, both your comments about Tesla and SolarCity seem to be feigning ignorance as a way to disguise your denigration. Hint: Solar (on-prem) is a way to deprive your electricity company of revenue, which is why they're not doing it.
Of course, they use it as some component of their electricity mix, and then bill you for it.
Many utilities are investing heavily in utility-scale solar and wind installations. But the reality is that on-premises solar is still a gamble. Nobody is yet making money at it, quite the contrary.
They know that they have to move to renewables soon and eventually coal power generation will be banned, so they're trying to burn as much of their stocks as they can before the stuff in the ground becomes worthless.
No - this completely ignores the way the electric grid, generation, and distribution work. Just because 'utility solar' is more efficient for large scale generation, that doesn't mean it doesn't also make sense for individuals to be able to produce their own electricity.
My solar system has a break even point of 5.9 years - in another 3.4 years I will be pocketing several thousand dollars per year that would otherwise be going to PG&E. Doesn't sound like a gamble to me.
I have achieved breakeven over buying some produce from the grocery store by growing it in my back yard, but that doesn't mean it's the future of agriculture. I guess it would help if the local Whole Foods were required to buy my excess lemons at the $1/each sticker price.
If you are lucky. If you are not, you've just invested in Solyndra (yes, I know they are manufacturer and not producer, doesn't matter). Local solar is much less risky.
So very different risk profiles, hence very different risk/reward trade-offs.
> he reality is that on-premises solar is still a gamble
It is. But that doesn't mean it is bad. It just means SolarCity will try it - and maybe become very rich doing it, or maybe will go bust - and if it works, in 20 years or so utilities will catch up. By that time it will be so regulated and red-taped that it would be hard for a small company to make it work anymore, so the utilities would fit right in.
So, right in the Tesla fanbase wheelhouse?
How's this: I live in a small province in Canada, and outside of a few tech enthusiasts, no one I know has any clue about Tesla.
I guess we differ hugely on the definition of "household name". Something is a household name, to me, when someone in every household has heard of the company.
That sort of following and interest can help Solar get more well known, and not to mention further integration with Tesla can quicken drivers along to SolarCity products.
Not to mention, everyone I know has heard of Tesla. You must have interesting friends!
Also California is Tesla's home turf, not really a good example for the country or the whole addressable market.
>The point is that it's a very, very reasonable assumption that Tesla is more likely to be known by the average person than SolarCity.
These two things contradict each other. Why would Tesla be known by people that cannot recognize Teslas?
It's not necessarily contradictory. I know Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, etc are luxury sports car brands. But if one drives past me on the road, I probably won't recognise them.
I don't think the Model S is very distinctive so I may have missed more in my peripheral vision. The Roadster was much more of a head-turner.
I have seen more McLarens, Lamborghinis, and Ferraris than I have Teslas.
I live in an area of about 100K population.
Depends on your utility, some are: http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solar/choice/in...
SolarCity doesn't do utility-scale solar, it does house-scale solar, and those are entirely different models. Also, business model of SolarCity is closely tied to the price structure of utilities, at least in California. These prices are structured - the lowest tier is relatively cheap, but it won't be enough, especially if you use AC or heating. Second tier is more expensive, next one yet more, and the fourth one is about twice as expensive as the first. SolarCity's pioneering idea - PPA - makes you put their solar panel on your property, and pay them for electricity instead of utility. In exchange of which you pay for all the electricity according to tier 1. Which is substantially cheaper. This model has little to do with generation on utility scale. BTW, never seen them in Home Depot around here. They must be using some other tactics in these areas, or maybe just haven't made friends with local HD.
It's not a new company. Tesla was founded 13 years ago. The same complaint can be made about new models of existing car comapnies. You didn't even attempt to research these things so of course they are unknown to you. That's a tautology. I don't know every car brand on the planet but I don't blame them for my own ignorance.
Most electric cars are rapidly depreciating in value. Usually they only sell for 20% of their original value after three years. Tesla cars usually keep 70% of their value. In 2013 you could even turn a profit by reselling a brand new tesla youbecause of their high demand but low supply. https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/remember-when-yo...
Tesla may be the best thing ever. All I am saying is that they do not have some enormous reservoir of brand equity.
http://www.fakesteve.net/2007/05/john-doerrs-my-asshole-comp...