Hacker News Reader

Comment by austenallred | Hacker News Reader

It’s funny to see everyone praise Amazon’s strategy of “invest everything you possibly can regardless of what the income statement looks like in the short-term. Tesla does the same thing and all anyone can say is “look at the income statement!”

Granted there are some differences, but the strategy is the same.

View on HN

Except Tesla is almost never cash flow positive on an operating basis, while Amazon almost always has been. Tesla is financing their expansion (in addition to covering past loses) with new cash infusions, while Amazon financed their expansion with actual profits. Justifying Tesla losing money because of Amazon is a complete false equivalence.

I can't help but view Tesla as an ongoing kickstarter. This was made even more apparent in their latest unveiling. I say this as a fan of their vision, mission and current product offering.

I see Tesla as a conduit for the wealthy to keep subsidising the technology for the middle class. In the same way that Uber is a way for the wealthy to pay for the commute of the middle class (cos let’s face it the poor aren’t taking cabs or buying EVs). For the sake of the community we need these vehicles of wealth transfer to keep existing.

The moment companies like Uber and Tesla start making money, we need the visionaries to come in and start producing ever better products and services for ever collapsing prices.

But that is the issue. They aren't selling enough cars to keep things going. Instead they tap capital, which is largely funded by the middle class. So it isn't the wealthy subsidising anything.

Tesla is in a more capital intensive industry, but if you removed the Model 3, for example, Tesla is profitable.

Everybody did not praise Amazon.

Amazon had a lot lower losses.

For people to see how this can be positive, some time needs to pass.

Most people are tuned to think in terms of linear growth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com