gian @ gian @lemmy.grys.it

Posts

0

Comments

446

Joined

2 yr. ago

I suppose we only need to wait to see how
all this will end, but in the end tesla probably is making choices based in data we have not, so they think they are right.

Let's see how it ends...

They say that you will be able to remove these, not that they will not install them, so...

Let me know if you have better numbers, but this article from back in January suggested 10k cybertrucks to be filled in 2023. Let’s say there are 10k potential scalpers, and 1M potential long-term buyers. That doesn’t mean the 10k trucks will get scalped by the 10k scalpers, it means we would expect 100 to be (again, individually) scalped, and the other 9,900 trucks to go to long term buyers

I am thinking that the proportion will be, at least at the beginning, more in favor of scalpers. Not that every cybertruck would go to them but I think that the first batch would go to scalpers and other people who want it just for a variety of reasons but will not be a long term buyer.
In the end my idea is that Tesla want to make sure that while the production goes to capacity, all the cybertrucks (or nearly all of them) is sold to long term buyers. That even assuming that like you said, the problem with the scalpers exist in the first place.

I think that’s an ok assumption, but the question is more about the number of people who would act so outrageously. It seems very odd to me that there would be so many people who hate Mush and are ok dropping $50k and have the bandwidth to resell, in such numbers that they significantly match or outnumber long-term buyers.

They don't need to match the long-term buyers, they just need to be able to get some and then sell them to people who maybe is on the waiting list for a late 2024 delivery and it is enough fanboys to accept to pay a higer price now instead of the right price in a year. And if only the 10% pull the stunt, haters will have something more to hate Musk (and Tesla) for or to point as a failure for EV cars or Tesla itself (in their haters mind).

Maybe, but there are whispers that EU is not happy with this since it seems to violate the GDPR.

No law changed, they simply are now obligated to respect the GDPR (at least formally).

Nothing should stop you from doing that, or at least trying. You are one person with one car, so there will be other stock available at a lower price for others to buy if they want. The problem of scalping becomes an issue when one person can buy a large portion of the product & artificially control the supply.

Or when a high enough number of people buy each one a small number of the few items available in a low supply to resell them. True, the item should be some sort of "status symbol" or necessary item for this scenario to work out. I' ve seen it in more menial situations where just a couple of people scalped on a low supply needed items (at least until production has gone to capacity).

The cybertruck situation is different from the ticket situation, you cannot produce 50000 cybertruck and then sell them, you need the space to store them, and the production needs to go to capacity so it will start low anyway. That's because it could be vulnerable to scalping, at the beginning you have a small number of items so you need a small number of people that are willing to try to buy to resell.

Cybertrucks are a large ($50k) investment, and as a physical good that’s also regulated through the DMV, they are a lot more work to resell. So in this scenario you think there is such a large number of Mush haters with both the disposable income & free time for resale that they eat up a significant portion of supply. AND that there is such a large amount of consumers with disposable income & desire for a truck that they would support such a resale market.

Since I am talking about haters and fanboys, I would not bet that they would act rationally. I would not exclude that there are people that hate Musk so much to pull out these kind of stunts to other people that love Musk so much to be the perfect target.

Yea, you are describing leasing, which is a totally different thing.

Legally speaking, no. Leasing and this type of contract (called "long term rent") are differents things here were I live even if the end result looks very similar.

If you would try these shenanigans in a regular contract, your company would be a) sued to the ground b) don’t sell one car…

a) not sure about that.
b) I would not bet on that.

Even at the time of the quarrels con Ferrari, Lamborghini was already producing both tractors, air conditioners and boilers.

Nope, depending how you write the contract, you can do it even in EU, although probably you must write it as the now quite common offers in which you pay something for the first X years as if it was rented and then you can pay the rest or give back the car. Basically a rent with an option to buy the car at the end of the rent at a previously agreed price.
This way you obviously cannot resell the car before the X years passed since it is not legally yours.

How ? But even if you succeed, what is stopping me from buying 1 cybertruck at X and resell it at 3X the next day ? And other people to do the same ? We all buy 1 car after all.

I think that here there will not be a Ticketmaster scenario, but more a scenario where a number of Musk haters will buy a cybertruck to resell it at a premium to a number of Musk fanboys just because.

So limiting the sale of it to 1 per person don't really solve anything.

People often choose what isn’t in their best interests but that doesn’t invalidate the criticism. I am unsure if this should/could simple be illegal but I will argue social stigma should be applied to people who don’t care about themselves or others.

Agree on people. But to decide if this is illegal, we should know the term of the contract. What I can think is that this is not blatantly illegal, I am sure Tesla has lawyers that draft the contract, maybe we all are making a case where there is not since the contract state that for the first year the car is just rented. Questionable but not illegal.

Musk’s has enough variety of questionable choices but I’ll damn him here for needlessly making low supply, the cause of scalping in the first place.

The point of discussion is if Musk want to have a low supply or he just cannot avoid it.
In my opinion he cannot avoid it, at least as the production start and until it goes to capacity, which is true for every new car that make to the market and not only for Tesla, so he takes some (questionable) steps to try to solve what he deem a problem.

I think it is not in anyone’s best interests to lessen their ownerships rights to maybe save money. Their choice is also bad for me in that it shows companies they can to it too and could become the norm.

While yours are valid concerns, that type of restriction works only on specific items. I don't see a car manufacturer pull the same stunt on a mass production car (or any other mass production item for the matter) because the problem this try to solve does not exist in the first place, maybe Tesla just think (true or false that it can be or based on the data they have) that the Cybertruck will be some sort of "status symbol" which would attract scalpers or the like of them.

In the end this is a battle Musk cannot win: he will be damned if he do (to ban resell in the first year) and he will be damned if he don't (and thus allowing scalpers). He can only choose why he will be damned so he choose a way that maybe is more friendly (or less enemy from your point of view) to the consumer.

If a manufacture has a good reason to not sell to someone that would be fine but it is none of their business what colour I paint my car, or who I can resell it too.

I can agree with you, but the fact that the manufacturer put these restrictions and people still buy their cars means that maybe it does not really matter to the buyers since having the car is much more important that being able to repaint it pink, in their view.

limit the number of trucks a person can buy?

Useless. Here we have nominal tickets for events and that does not solve the problem by a very long shot, I suppose it would be the same for cars.

The reduction in ownership rights is worse than scalpers.

I suppose it depends: would you like to at least have the item or be able to buy it only at a 3x price, if ever ?
Other high brand cars have even more stringent clauses (like, you cannot repaint the car in a certain color to not ridicule the brand). People are even perpetually banned from buying from the brand in some cases.

Not sure why you assume this is pure benevolence instead of companies making more money via their control of property you paid for.

It is not benevolence, it is a try to solve a real problem that they think it could arise.

I would say that it is not the proper way even if you have not a family

As an almost FAANG sized company engineer, I stay because I have work to do.

Everyone has work to do.
If you stay once in a while it's ok, shit happen from time time but if you always (or most of the days) stay, then you and your company have a problem: bad management. And that is not solved with overtime.

Nah, their problem is some analyst, which does not understand what he was speaking of, who decide that the company should grow by x% in the next quarter. If the company grow only by x -1 % then investors sell, the stock lose value, the shareholders are poorer and the big wings of the company may lose their job due to "loss of confidence in the management" from the shareholders.

You can. After all the GDPR does not forbid you to not accept to talk to someone.

Regulators that seems to have already unformally shoot down the proposal given that it seems to be against the GDPR.

I mean they successfully destroyed any possibility to use banking apps in custom roms like LineageOS, with their new Play Integrity

This is a consequence of the security standards banks (and credit card companies) need to follow, not Google doing.