> Many years ago Microsoft was trying to purchase Yahoo for $45 a share. Every company has their Yahoo moment, where they consider making an over the top purchase offer for a company, that in hind site looks like a terrible idea.
That bid was terrible for YHOO shareholders. You do realize YHOO owned a ton of alibaba stock and yahoo!japan stock right? The alibaba shares alone that yahoo owned is now worth more than the $45 billion offer by MSFT. That's after Mayer foolishly sold off a huge chunk of alibaba shares a few years ago to go on her buying spree.
If steve ballmer had managed to buy YHOO, it would have been one of the greatest deals in history.
YHOO owned 25% of alibaba ( which is worth about $400 billion today ). YHOO also owned Yahoo!Japan which was worth $10 billion.
If MSFT bought YHOO back then, we would be calling Steve Ballmer and MSFT a genius today.
It's all journalists. It's all media. Some are for sure outright corrupt but it's just part of the job.
> I'm not sure how easy this would be. Does anyone know if something like this exists?
Don't know of any such thing that exists today. But it shouldn't be that difficult. A simple database linking journalists, news organizations, to topics/companies/keywords/etc.
All orgs with a PR dept have a list and a rate card. It's not like this info doesn't exist. It's just that the general public can't do jack about it. It's like knowing the salaries of baseball players and what team they are on. General public has zero influence on that. The only people who have influence on these things is people who can buy the whole team and set an agenda.
The most worrying part is tech industry buying news media. Steve Jobs wife bought The Atlantic. Bezos bought the washingtonpost. As the news properties become cheaper and the money floods the tech industry, I'm sure they'll snap up some more.
We really need a more diversity media landscape. It's entirely liberal with pockets of conservatism. We need less liberal, more conservative and much more moderate media.
It's unhealthy for the media to be heavily skewed to one or the other side.
Not only that, we need this is academia and corporations and the banking sector. More diversity. More competing thoughts/ideas.
Accusations of astroturfing and shillage are not allowed on HN unless you have evidence. (Plenty of explanations of this in the comments via https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR....) Not only do you have no evidence, you're seriously misassessing HN if you think it isn't replete with sincere Tesla fanatics.
Worse, you broke the HN guidelines badly by smearing a particular user. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do it again.
Moreover, you've been engaging in the kind of tedious flamewar that I pray every day, in vain, will not appear today on Hacker News.
So: lots of reasons not to comment like this.
Edit: actually, this account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle and flamewar in general, so I've banned it. This isn't what HN is for. (No, this is not because of TSLA shillage or whatever immigration policy you disapprove of.)
The comment you are quoting is a snippet out of context. I'm not sure why you're so upset.
'Whether Tesla survives or not, these billions are some of the best spent money on the planet in the last 50 years.
What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great.
What Tesla has achieved is so important in the long run for the environment, for ending the strategic dependence on oil dictatorships, and for renewing the belief in technology. And the cars are really nice too.
Speculating, as some do, that the EV revolution would end with a Tesla bankruptcy is silly, not just because Google and Apple (and probably other companies) would be more than happy to take over before or after a bankruptcy, but also because consumers and the the auto industry have now been shown where to go. None of us can unlearn what Tesla has taught us. There is no way back now. Tesla has already won.'
Maybe, but what about what Musk has done as a whole? If he can drive home-battery adoption, solar, and electric vehicles, and create markets where companies like GM, Ford, and the Euro manufacturers have to chase the new market, that has to make a huge impact. Obviously it's not going to completely remove our dependence (mainly plastics and shipping) but it will absolutely hit the bottom line of the most oppressive regimes funded by oil (Saudi Arabia). Also this will help us you know stop destroying entire mountain ranges and the largest CO2 sinks in North America for tar sands mining (Boreal Forest).
On the plastics front, just look at the news from earlier this week of Lego working to replace all of the plastics used in their toys with bio-plastics (or other non-oil based polymers). A few more efforts like that and plastics won't be anywhere near the driver of oil consumption they are now. That doesn't address shipping (which is horrendously polluting), but if that's the last one standing that's still a massive improvement.
Tesla has been proceeding according to his plan for a bit over a decade. He foresaw the value of it in 2006. At the very least, his insight accelerated the development and adoption of electric cars and solar power.
Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable? Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?
If any, I think it was baby steps made by Toyota Prius.
Original poster specifically pointed that profitable part of your answer isn't there for Tesla, in reality.
Sure, maybe for Tesla, (and other similar growth at all cost technology companies) it it's not immediately profitable. Let's check back in 10 years and see if this makes Tesla and their investors any money.
That doesn't jive with your original argument. So GM made the Bolt because Tesla proved (??) that they "would be profitable in 10 years"? That is what your argument amounts to.
> Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?
From your "context": "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B?"
$5-10B Losses doesn't translate into "profitable".
> Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?
Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA.
What is with you? I'm a fan of TSLA. I like electric vehicles. I just don't believe in the cult of it.
Honestly, I don't expect crazy comments like "What are the accumulated losses so far? $5-10B? Even if Tesla were to spend another $50B and go bankrupt, I would still maintain it's great. "
to be upvoted on HN.
Maybe on reddit or some other social media, but I feel there is a higher quality of people here. And when I see something odd, I'll point it out.
> Maybe? Electric cars existed before TSLA and electric cars will exist after TSLA.
Go watch "Who killed the electric car", then you'll understand what a travesty the EV1 was. Electric cars have always been compliance cars before Tesla. Heck, Bob Lutz credits Elon Musk with why they build the Volt.
Tesla is polarizing and, as always, both camps are making equally absurd statements:
> $5-10B Losses
$5-10B expenditure.
Which has not yet been shown to be a profitable decision, but unless the product flops it's not a loss either. $5-10B is merely a number that we're uncomfortable with - it is likely a necessary number because Tesla is now racing to grow in the EV market before bigger players (BMW, Toyota, etc.) enter it.
"Is he wrong? Did Tesla not prove to the rest of the auto industry that electric cars are not only viable but also profitable and inevitable?"
No, they didn't.
Nobody doubted they were viable or profitable, only desired. If TSLA accomplished anything, it was convincing people they are desired. That demand definitely did not exist before TSLA.
Your comment implies all these things were already the case. That electric was "always inveitable", and tesla just proved it. That's, IMHO, quite wrong.
as is this:
"Would we have the Bolt, Spark, Fiat e500, eGolf without Tesla?"
You understand, for example, the bolt started design in 2012, right?
IE At the same time the model S did.
Others in your list are similar.
It's like saying success of the iPhone caused Google to release Android.
I'm with the OP, every single one of these threads seems some combination of cultish love for tesla and messianic adoration of elon.
As a complete outside observer, the distinct impression i get is of people who always loved electric cars, etc, who felt like the rest of the world was "wrong" about something, thinking they have now been proved "right" about something.
The only practical difference between TSLA and the other auto makers I see is that the others by and large followed demand (IE they wait for people to want a thing, then build that), and TSLA was able to create some demand.
That's awesome and a testament to great PR/etc. But it's pretty also pretty normal successful startup behavior,and may or may not be related to any of the "moral goodness" people see in electric vehicles.
You already got downvoted, but your info is pretty wrong. Let me clarify one thing. Tesla delivered the model s in 2012. I know because I got one in December then. I don't know when the bolt was designed, but starting in 2012 sounds about right. The Tesla was available for getting in line in 2011 and a little before (cause I put my money down to get in line in early 2011), but delivered in 2012. Other manuf. were not taking it as seriously as Tesla way back then. They already had experience with the roadster being on the road before then.
they have what appears to be a great product -- I am a lowly network security engineer and think I would enjoy working for them and interacting with their teams.
the reality is the tesla team has continually delivered (often later than expected) in spite of incredible odds including significant short interest in the company and the probably increase in short interest after articles like this.
I am rooting for them, despite the fact I probably will not buy one for a few years I like what they are doing and believe they are a net positive.
I don't see the jump from noting that the same enthusiastic fanboy is in the HN thread and the TSLA thread to "It's like a TSLA/Elon cult meeting in this thread." If you just note the connection without the inflammatory language, it's much more productive.
> I don't see the jump from noting that the same enthusiastic fanboy is in the HN thread and the TSLA thread to "It's like a TSLA/Elon cult meeting in this thread."
Yes. The fact that HN is sympathetic to Tesla is not more surprising than it's unusual interest in bicycle lanes and life extension. But name calling doesn't help at all. Better would be to link to high-quality criticism, write it yourself, or minimally just point out imbalance without inflammatory language.
well seriously tesla is way way better than any german car company (and I'm from germany).
Tesla burns trough cash (yes that's bad) and the germans "burn" (pollute) the cities. not that much better.
just looking at the diesel summit, what a big kind of joke.
Even accounting for recent VW emissions scandal, have you looked at their engines fuel consumption? Like a 170 hp diesel engine burning about 6 liters/100 km (47mpg? This is much better than any hybrid and much better than all EVs regarding CO2 emissions.. Just let this continue and we can forget about electric for a long time
Yes. From all sides. It's sad thing to witness because my naive young self viewed social media as the promise of free information flow, honest interaction and entertainment. I guess that was wishful thinking.
> The Allied Powers had seemingly learned the lessons of Versailles and didn't try to punish the losers (well, not as much), instead letting them grow.
This was true for Germany but not for japan. Due to hard feelings over ww2 and of course racial animosity/hatred, our plan for japan was deindustrialization. We wanted japan to be at least a few decades behind the US and turn more of their nation into docile agrarian farmers. We also instituted starvation policy to thin out and subjugate the japanese. There was rampant starvation in japan in the first few years after ww2.
We had troops specifically assigned to destroy japanese industrial/engineering/science capacity. One of the most famous was the destruction of japan's cyclotron.
Keep in mind that we were an extremely racist nation 70 years ago and we had just nuked and firebombed japan into complete rubble. Whereas germans were "our white aryan brothers" ( it's absurd to think it now, but that's how the leaders of the US thought back then ) and we felt an obligation to rehabilitate them, the japanese were viewed as inferior asians with plenty of motive to attack the US again.
The only reason japan was allowed to reindustrialize was the soviet threat and the korean war. We needed japan to help seal off the soviets, chinese and north koreans.
It's fascinating stuff. If the communist threat didn't exist and the korean war never occurred, japan might be a more agrarian society today controlled by the US administrators.
There was a Japan faction and a China faction who each wanted their respective countries to be the center of US Asia policy and the China faction lost.
> I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said:
It's just the nature of where we live and our propaganda.
We have been told over and over that we are the light of the world and we represent good. China/Russia/Muslims/others represent bad.
> If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will.
I'm sure there is. Human beings are human beings.
In the future, maybe instead of national/racial demarcations, we'll have "valid" and "invalid" demarcations a la "Gattaca".
> it's inevitable that we also learn to control our own evolution.
The problem here is the pronoun "we" and "our". It isn't "we" who are going to control evolution. It is a select group of wealthy elites.
Also, just because china and russia might do it doesn't mean that we necessarily should do it. After all, the pioneers of illegal human experimentation was the US and britain but most of the world didn't follow along.
I agree with you that genetic engineering ( controlled evolution? ) is inevitable. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the ethical concerns and other such pitfalls.
> Amazon had almost 20 years in business without "making any money" except a few quarters where they accidentally eked out some non-trivial profit.
AMZN could get away with it because it was growing and expanding nearly monopolistic company. It was similar to a social media company in that regards. There is only ONE AMZN and was a pioneer in a new "industry/sector".
TSLA is different. They are trying to invade an industry/sector with a lot of heavy hitters and established companies with lots of money.
If you think TSLA is going to be the sole monopoly in the car/electric/etc sector, then you might have a shot. And if you think TSLA could expand into other sectors like AMZN did ( IE cloud ), then you are right.
> It's amazing just how many people on different sites (stocktwits, seeking alpha, reddit) continue the "they're losing money, why are they valued so highly?" comments.
It isn't amazing. It's sensible. The problem with a company like TSLA is that there are a lot of people with vested interests to only talk about the "good side".
I owned TSLA for a few years and I sold last year. Probably sold too early but couldn't justify not cashing out after more than a 400% gain.
I may buy back in if it drops significantly, but it looks like it's gonna keep going up for a while. Who knows. In an era of easy money it's hard to valuate a company. Especially an "all-or-nothing" stock like TSLA.
One similarity between TSLA and AMZN is the backing they both had from the hedge funds/wall street. And one of the reasons why I invested in TSLA is that Musk was able to get people with money to trust him. The same way bezos did.
But one thing I don't like is the near religious/cultish craze over musk that didn't exist with bezos.
Actually, if mayer didn't sell a huge chunk of alibaba stake, the BABA stake by itself would be worth 120% of microsoft's bid.
YHOO owned 25% of alibaba. Alibaba is worth $400 B today. Microsoft's offer was $45 billion for YHOO.