It's a very different market today than when Tesla started. Tesla's strategy of starting at the high end was necessary to build electric cars from scratch. New competitors can start with existing supply chains and a base of engineering expertise.
replyI do think Tesla has lost sight of their original plan, though. They should have kept going through one more generation of significant cost reduction/increased volume after Model 3/Y. They are intentionally leaving this part of the market to competitors as they focus on self driving, and I think it's a mistake that will cost them in the near term.
I think Tesla looked at what is selling in the U.S. market and pivoted to the Cybertruck. Small, cheap sedans and wagons just don’t sell that well at retail anymore—in part because people don’t like them, in part because of safety concerns, and in part because there is a huge backlog of cheap used vehicles.
replyI think the Cybertruck is a prestige project, like the Roadster. It will never compete with the F-150 in the US in its current form, it won't work in the global market either, and probably won't ever be material to Tesla's financial results unless it gets a complete redesign to make it cheaper and less ostentatious.
replySlate’s plan is only possible because they have the benefit of almost 2 decades of advancements (read incredible price drop) in batteries and EV related components.
replyExact same car 2 decades ago would have cost a hell of a lot more. At which point the lack of bells and whistles would have been a huge problem.
> If Slate succeeds, it would be the total inversion of Tesla's original masterplan strategy
replySlate is an anagram of Tesla. Coincidence?
>If Slate succeeds
replyObviously a very big "if" making it at that price point will be extremely challenging.