>Tesla gets to sell a car it otherwise wouldn't get to sell, and a consumer gets a vehicle they otherwise couldn't afford. Why is that lame? That's capitalism.
It's lame because the value change is one-sided.
The value is being adjusted by taking away options from a good which has the same intrinsic material value as another to change the market value of the good.
It's capitalism, sure, but it's not one of the better parts.
So you're suggesting only selling the 75kwh version, which means some folks who want it would otherwise not be able to afford it. How is that good for anyone? And if you buy a 60kwh version, would you be happier if it actually had fewer cells? Comments above indicate that means it would charge more slowly and charging would wear it out faster, but that appears to be the solution you prefer.
It's not clear to me that the batteries in the 60kwh version aren't 'reject' batteries that weren't quite up to snuff to support the full 75. So just because Tesla pushed out this update doesn't mean that every car is actually capable of getting the full 75. Where-as the cars sold as 75 are guaranteed to reach that.
I don't know the details of Tesla's batteries exactly, but I'm pretty sure they're just use a ton of 18650s. If too many of them won't hold a charge, then instead of fixing it they can just call it a 60 rather then a 75.
That's a bit silly. I suppose in someways it is nice for the consumer that they have the 60kwh version if they're basically selling it close to a loss with the hope that you'll pay for the battery upgrade, but obviously it begs the question why the 75 model can't just be the same price.
> but obviously it begs the question why the 75 model can't just be the same price.
Because Tesla would make less off of each 75, which is no good when you need cash to expand operations. Have to squeeze every dollar out of each sale, manufacturing and R&D costs money!
The 60kwh has been discontinued after tepid demand. The 75kwh is the cheapest Model S one can buy today, but that wasn't true for a few months 60kwh was up for sale.
Puhleese, if you're going to make a statement like that you need to at least attempt some sort of citation.
The vast majority (in the US at least) of price discrimination instances are cases where anyone is free to choose the cheaper option. Rich people can clip coupons too, they just decide it's not worth it for them. Heck, the whole reason for a Tesla Model 3 and Model S is price discrimination. I think it's a great thing I'll be able to get a Model 3 while richer consumers can choose a Model S if they care to.
It is common economic knowledge/theory. My citation is any economic textbook on price discrimination.
Let me give you an extreme example.
Imagine that a company perfectly knew the exact maximum amount of dollars that you personally are willing to pay for their product. Then, they offer you that product for 1$ less than your maximum.
This is called perfect 1st degree price discrimination, and results in ~zero consumer welfare, because consumer welfare is the difference between actual price paid, and max willingness to pay price, which in this case are both ~equal to one another.
> Alright, then there is no 60 kWh version of the car.
That's implicit short-term thinking which I find strange given the speed at which such technology improves nowadays.
Even assuming the government made a law against artificial software lockdown punishable by death, this luxury vehicle would still come down in price and improve in quality well within the lifetime of most of the people who are currently drooling over it.
That's not an argument for making such a law, just a refutation against what is probably a false dichotomy between car and no car.
It's lame because the value change is one-sided.
The value is being adjusted by taking away options from a good which has the same intrinsic material value as another to change the market value of the good.
It's capitalism, sure, but it's not one of the better parts.