Idle observation: Tesla's valuation now assumes it will ultimately produce more free cash flow than the entire car industry, including most of the suppliers. Getting (say) 50% share with a great EV won't do that. And would be a pretty radical bet on autonomous taxi pods...
(Yes, Apple changed the TAM for phones. But persuading people to spend hundreds of dollars more on a phone is not quite the same as persuading people to spend tens of thousands more on a car, even if you're not buying gas anymore)
I don't think electric disrupts the car industry, and it's a matter of record that Tesla doesn't have working autonomy (and there it competes with *software* companies, not car companies). But even if you buy both of those theses - how does it 2x or 3x consumer spending on cars?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Benedict Evans

Benedict Evans Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @benedictevans

10 Jan
IMO, the move by Apple and Google to remove Parler from their stores is I think much more significant than Facebook and Twitter’s bans, and the move by AWS and Twilio to deny it service is more significant again. B2B suppliers acting as regulators by default.
Apple has been doing this in privacy already - acting as a privacy regulator by default. But does the same now apply to half your tech stack?
There’s a very obvious comparison between Parler’s vendors cutting it off and Visa/MC cutting off Mindgeek, or Cloudflare/8Chan. Are the specific issues narrow/extreme enough that this doesn’t become a generalised trend of de facto regulation from the bottom of the stack?
Read 5 tweets
9 Jan
While the USA keeps arguing about section 230, the EU just launched the DSA. This creates binding content take-down liabilities for big platforms. And when it becomes law, in 2-3 years, it will apply everywhere, just like cookies laws and GDPR.…
It’s reasonable to suggest that the EU is effectively repealing section 230 itself, right now. US companies will have to take the DSA into account, just as they have to take GDPR into account.
(No-one America paid any attention to GDPR until they suddenly realised how big the fines were. I suspect the same is going to happen with the DSA and the DMA)
Read 4 tweets
9 Jan
Dos this prove Twitter and Facebook are ’publishers’, not ‘platforms’? Neither. You might as well ask if radio is a book or a newspaper. It’s neither - it’s radio. Facebook and Twitter are neither - they’re social networks.
Even ‘Platform’ doesn’t work here - Apple clearly plays a different role to twitter & FB, as does Amazon.
The internet is a new sphere, that touches some of the same free speech questions as book, radio, newspaper, telephones, and a public square. But those all have different answers, and so does this - you can’t just define away the questions.
Read 7 tweets
7 Jan
My website uses Google Analytics, with IP anonymised and cross-site tracking disabled.
I know that I have no PII (and nor does Google or Squarespace).
I do NOT know if this complies w/ GDPR or the EU cookie law
I could pay a lawyer $$$ to tell me they don’t know either.
I know what % of traffic to my site comes from where, and what % looks at which pages. I have zero private data about anyone, and none of this affects anyone's privacy.
I have no idea how GDPR or the cookie law applies to this.
A very senior tech policy person at told me "no-one knows if they're obeying GDPR. Literally no-one".
Posit: this is not a good way to write laws.
Read 5 tweets
30 Dec 20
I’m not sure what word I would use to describe the idea that if Facebook didn’t exist all those advertisers would be buying space in newspapers, but it isn’t ‘cynical’. ‘Wrong’, certainly.
Imagine I am a small business selling Japanese and Scandinavian ceramics, and I have $1000 to spend to get customers. I buy ads shown to people who follow ceramicists on Instagram. Explain, please, why closing down IG means that now I’ll buy ads in the Seattle post intelligencer?
Even the New York Times does not allow you to buy targeted advertising across a properties without filling in a credit application and giving personal references with phone numbers.
Read 4 tweets
29 Dec 20
So. In 2013 I started a weekly email newsletter (I mention it sometimes). In July this year I added a paid version. This is how each of these are going. 1/
Lots of different models floating round. @benthompson started his newsletter at about the same time and monetised directly, where I monetised by joining @a16z (a media company that monetises through VC). My free newsletter continues unchanged because it has value in other ways
I charge $10/month, but other people make as much or more by selling at $10,000 a month. With a large enough list sponsorship becomes a real business, or ecommerce. @imranamed built a media company, as did Daily Candy, @austin_rief, and @rafat
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!