Hacker News Reader

Comment by cubefox | Hacker News Reader

It seems that if people are offered such a deal by Tesla, this is evidence that the deal is in Tesla's favor, not theirs. Otherwise Tesla would not offer the deal.

View on HN

Duh. Someone here said the following a few months ago: “business is ripping people off without pissing them off.

That said, 5k discount on a new car could make a lot of people happy too.

I’d say this is one of the really good handling of how to end a ‘lifetime’ offer instead of just revoking it once you don’t like it anymore. Of which we have plenty of examples.

I'm not saying Tesla is the bad guy here or anything. I'm just noting that when you are offered what looks like a zero-sum deal, the deal is probably not in your favor.

Yeah. Almost all "lifetime" offers will end badly. Tesla does well.

This is true of everything in commerce. Businesses only make offers that they think will benefit them. Consumers only accept offers they think will benefit them. Because of the prospect of mutual benefit, both parties are better off and overall welfare increases.

Although in general there’s a pretty big information asymmetry between a multi billion dollar car company and a boomer dad w/ a Tesla. So whether the latter is usually better off may be debatable.

The multi billion dollar company has more information and resources, but also has the disadvantage that it has to make uniform offers to large groups of people.

The same offer might be hugely in favor of one customer and to the disadvantage of another. Who's favored overall depends on who accepts the deal (which both sides can try to influence)

That's assuming no one makes any mistakes, of course.

In most deals both parties profit as they are not zero-sum games. You give me money, I give you a loaf of bread. But in the present case the deal appears to be zero-sum: Either Tesla saves money, or the customer, but not both.

That is almost certain, though it should be noted that it’s not always the case.

For instance in the mid 70s exchanged the few “GS Birotor” it had sold for CXs, which was higher in the range.

The deal was very much in Citroen’s favour, but not to the client’s loss: the birotor was effectively pretty crummy (outside of being a collector model, which is how a few survived), and it was launched just as the oil crisis started powered by a gas-guzzling (and unreliable) rotary engine, as well as being almost double the price of a standard GS.

As a result it sold extremely poorly (847 units were produced) and was quickly pulled. Citroen tried to buy / exchange them back (and did get most of them) so it didn’t need to support the car and keep spare parts through its network.

I don't think this is universally true, as e.g. companies may temporarily take a small loss to increase the userbase and the visibility and perhaps network effects that come with it. Of course they will withdraw or change the offer later when shareholders want to see results.

Not even just deals that involve Tesla, but all deals in general.

Does anyone intentionally make a habit of conducting dealings that are not in their favor?

Most deals are not zero-sum, so they can be in favor of both sides. That appears not to be not the case with this deal though. Either Tesla saves money, or the costumer, but not both.

Why would anyone take them up on it then? Is saving money the only dimension to it? What if the customer wants a new car?

They are altering the deal, pray they don't alter it any further.

They are literally adding sweeteners on a new deal because they are trying to entice customers rather than altering the deal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com