I mean, fuck Musk, but the same would apply for literally any manufacturer of commercial or industrial equipment.
By this logic ASML would never sell their world-leading computer chip lithography machines. They would just run their own production lines instead.
On the other end of the cost spectrum, no manufacturer would ever sell robot vacuum cleaners or lawn mowers, instead contracting these out as cleaning services.
The truth is companies will sell profitable machines to other companies simply because the entirety of civilization is built on the specialization of labor. This applies to both individuals and groups of individuals. Sure, ASML could raise capital and try to invest in their own chip fabs, but why? If they have the money to invest, they would be better off buying more equipment and hiring more employees to make more of the tools they already sell. This company’s machines are one of the major bottlenecks in global compute production. They can sell machines as fast as they can make them. They know how to make a really good lithography machine. They don’t know how to run a full fab well. Instead they focus on just their one part of the industry.
Specialization of labor built civilization. It’s why we’re not still living in caves. I would never by a Cybercab because I don’t want to give money to nazis. And it’s actually likely that Musk is lying about the profitability of these things. At the same time, however, it is very poor logic to assume that simply because a company is selling a piece of commercial or industrial equipment means that equipment is unprofitable to own.
Broadly, you have a point. However with Tesla Musk has been pretty consistent that they would be directly doing it and they have the Tesla app managing the rides.
Their strategy has been all in one, they make the cars, they own the chargers, and they don’t really partner with anyone in any significant way.
While it does happen that companies end up partnering and competing at the same time, it’s relatively less likely. So for Tesla it is extra strange to be pitching being a supplier for other autonomous taxis while simultaneously being in the market.
So yeah, generally it is a poor argument, but in the context of Tesla, it is at least a bit out of character for them.
I mean, fuck Musk, but the same would apply for literally any manufacturer of commercial or industrial equipment.
By this logic ASML would never sell their world-leading computer chip lithography machines. They would just run their own production lines instead.
On the other end of the cost spectrum, no manufacturer would ever sell robot vacuum cleaners or lawn mowers, instead contracting these out as cleaning services.
The truth is companies will sell profitable machines to other companies simply because the entirety of civilization is built on the specialization of labor. This applies to both individuals and groups of individuals. Sure, ASML could raise capital and try to invest in their own chip fabs, but why? If they have the money to invest, they would be better off buying more equipment and hiring more employees to make more of the tools they already sell. This company’s machines are one of the major bottlenecks in global compute production. They can sell machines as fast as they can make them. They know how to make a really good lithography machine. They don’t know how to run a full fab well. Instead they focus on just their one part of the industry.
Specialization of labor built civilization. It’s why we’re not still living in caves. I would never by a Cybercab because I don’t want to give money to nazis. And it’s actually likely that Musk is lying about the profitability of these things. At the same time, however, it is very poor logic to assume that simply because a company is selling a piece of commercial or industrial equipment means that equipment is unprofitable to own.
The more likely case is that the equipment (an autonomous cab) is unprofitable to own once you factor in risk with liability and damages.
Broadly, you have a point. However with Tesla Musk has been pretty consistent that they would be directly doing it and they have the Tesla app managing the rides.
Their strategy has been all in one, they make the cars, they own the chargers, and they don’t really partner with anyone in any significant way.
While it does happen that companies end up partnering and competing at the same time, it’s relatively less likely. So for Tesla it is extra strange to be pitching being a supplier for other autonomous taxis while simultaneously being in the market.
So yeah, generally it is a poor argument, but in the context of Tesla, it is at least a bit out of character for them.