Why not? Look at Apple's smartphone market share in the US. It's been fairly constant at 60% for the last 15 years.

Consecutive years of sales declines is a situation where it does not matter if the market is growing or shrinking, it's bad for a company. The only way to grow if absolute sales go down is to raise margins on each individual unit.

"But with weakening sales and a host of competitors, Tesla has had to cut prices in recent years, squeezing its margins and worrying investors."

Hmmmm, I guess maybe the author of the article understands this better than you think?

Optimus seems to be much closer to actually being released as a product than Atlas. After over a decade, Boston Dynamics still hasn't shown anyone a live, unscripted demo of Atlas as far as I can tell (Tesla was showing those with multiple Optimus robots a year ago). And they don't appear to have any plans for actually selling it as a product anytime soon.

I'm skeptical of the humanoid robot market in general, but at the moment Tesla and Unitree appear to be the two companies ate the forefront of it.

The market can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent.

Without the tax credit these companies may cease to exist or stop making evs in the case of Ford.

It's likely they will have fewer competitors soon

Long-term growth is pinned on success in AI, robotics, robotaxis, and autonomous services.

This story never made sense. They sold about 1.8 million cars in 2024 (and also in 2023), VAG sold 9 million. Tesla is no where close to winning the car market. Until recently, Ford regularly sold more F-Series than Tesla sold cars.

Sure, for quite some time, Tesla was selling a lot more EVs than anyone else. But, building EVs is supposed to be easier than building ICE cars, and some of the old guard auto manufacturers have been building cars for hundreds of years... Once they decide to build EVs and figure out the logistics of batteries, they're going to have no trouble building EVs or selling them, and then Tesla is left with the moat of the Musk Reality Distortion Field which seems to be weaker now than ever.

When nobody else was making competent EVs, Telsa's market value was clear. Now, I don't know. There are so many to choose from, but what does a Tesla give you that some other EV doesn't?

2024: $97.69 B, i.e. +0.95% vs. 2023

2023: $96.77 B, i.e. +18.8% vs. 2022

2022: $81.46 B, i.e. +51.35% vs. 2021

So flat for 1 year (going into 2024) and we don't yet know 2025 numbers, which is less pessimistic than your "almost 3 years flat".

You can lose market share and increase revenue if the market is growing fast enough.

If you measure market share by units moved (as many markets are measured), you can raise prices and increase revenue despite lower unit sales and lost market share.

When they removed the center horn and the stalks from their cars, they officially jumped the shark. But I bet they saved at least $50 per car from their costs. I still can't believe the NHTSA hasn't issued a recall.

Another POV is the measurement is meaningless, and the market seems to agree.

The auto industry is a good bet as long as you think Americans of means gravitate towards a car lifestyle, which is almost certainly true.

The Cybertruck is just am embarrassment, design wise.

And in many ways it's inferior to the Y. Tesla's mega casting and structural pack gives the Y excellent range and a lower weight for a cheaper battery.

I think the reason Tesla hasn't done mega casting and structural packs for the other lineups (besides the equipment costs) is because it'd make them eat into the revenue of the top tier models. A model 3 cutting down several hundred pounds would be range competitive with the model S. The shorter range LFP batteries could still land you in previously long range land.

The QC on the Cybertruck pretty much shows why they lost their brand power over the years, though. Even when ignoring the politics.

I may be proven wrong, but until then I'll point to ~ten years of FSD promises.

Don't forget that about the other 95% of the people on earth

Somewhat, but I'll blame business finance way, way, way more.

The US automakers are doing the exact same dumbass thing they did in the 1970s with "BIGGER!-shouted (and more profitable)-whispered" until the Japanese automakers showed up and wiped the floor with them.

Well, BYD is coming and is going to wipe the floor with them.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Keep in mind that these things will be built in Japan and imported. I’m sure Tesla could’ve figured out some way to have an offering the same price or cheaper.

All the other 3-rows have decent headroom in that last row. The Kia and Hyundai almost 42 inches. I haven't looked into the Cadillac or Volvo, but from the outside they look about the same.

All but the shortest adults and children will be uncomfortable in the Tesla third row. I'll bet it's used more for groceries than passengers.

To compete in the 3-row market, I think Tesla's gotta build something that can accommodate adults too.

Pricing is another question though, and no CarPlay/AA while also coming from an old guard auto manufacturer means no sale from me.

Semi-solid state is coming for Tesla's lunch.

"Tesla has image problem." You mean the multiple nazi salutes? The "don't apologize to your past" to the AfD? Being high on something on national television? Unhinged posts on twitter? Kekius Maximus?

EVs are luxury products. You can get 90% of electification with a 50-mile-range PHEV and mitigate the charging infrastructure problem. I have a used Tesla and a PHEV, and if my PHEV only had 50 instead of the paltry 20 mile range, 100% of my daily trips would be fully electrified.

As for further examples of Musk's incompetence, there should be three different badges: Tesla, an ultra-high luxury brand that focuses on traditional cabin comfort, and a low end mass brand. They should have a minivan, station wagon, an actual large SUV, a subcompact city car, a real pickup truck, a work van, and where is the goddamn semi?

Tesla should have bought a struggling auto company for manufacturing, design, and suppliers, and used that for the low-end badge and for PHEVs. Nissan would have been perfect I would think.

Tesla should at this point have joint ventures with huge numbers of electrification avenues: construction equipment, prosumer lawn mowers, "side by sides", golf carts, ATVs, jet skis, boats, if it has an ICE motor, Tesla should be expanding into it with a good name brand.

Of course Tesla solar is moribund, the solar roof is nowhere.

And if anyone claims again that grid storage will deliver some massive sales to Tesla: any success is temporary. Grid will be won by sodium ion and other grid-specific storage chemistries that cylindrical cell manufacture won't be able to compete with.

And yet another point: Tesla's cylindrical cells were an advantage ... five years ago. It's not anymore. Sodium Ion, LFP, semi-solid state, sulfur chems, all will probably be pouch. Cylindrical is basically legacy manufacturing tech.

Musk's cozying up and inevitable fallout with Trump definitely put the EV credits in crosshairs. Probably wouldn't have survived the era of insanity, but that gravy train (1/3 of tesla's profits ... at least) is over.

Finally, let's not forget the total disaster that the dry-cathode 4680 battery cell is. Basically still vaporware, and the Chinese manufacturers have better tech already in manufacture.

AND YET, I'm sure the stock will go up based on the bad news.

I fully agree, I just wanted to focus specifically on how their offerings are lackluster even if there weren’t other problems.

Plus buying an inverse ETF has higher fees than actually shorting it and you can't make a pair trade or earn interest on the money.

The first thing I thought of when I saw that pay package being floated was the current state that Tesla is in. That's the primary reason such a package seems so fucking bonkers.

Tesla's received favorable attention for it's "claim" they are (were?) working on a $30k car.

And that techno-ideological claim that "all you need for self-driving is a camera" is a cost-savings solution. [ A robotics prof, ( I think at a university in Philadelphia ? ) cites a statistic that camera based navigation will succeed 97% of the time, max. So, 3% failures over all scenarios. ]

So literally he killed the affordable 'Model 2' because self driving would destroy 80% of the market and if that was true there wasn't demand.

So he decided to only focus on 'RoboTaxi'.