Some senior Tesla executives were alarmed last year when Elon Musk denied a Reuters report that the company had killed a planned all-new $25,000 EV that investors had expected to drive explosive vehicle sales growth, according to people familiar with the matter.
“Reuters is lying,” Musk had posted on X, minutes after the story published on April 5, 2024, halting a 6% decline in Tesla’s stock. Tesla shares recovered some of the loss after Musk’s post, but the stock was down 3.6% at market close.
The executives knew that Musk had, in fact, canceled the low-cost vehicle, which many investors called the Model 2, and pivoted Tesla to focus on self-driving robotaxis, the people said. The company had told employees the project was over weeks earlier, Reuters reported, citing three sources and company documents.
The “muh MSM clickbait” is just American-style intellectual laziness on your part. Where is your proof for this?
Why doesn’t Musk sue them if they are lying?
So do you have insider information or not? If not, why bring up the cybercab or whatever? Are you saying you are the only one who knows about it and you’re claiming that Reuters ignored this info and just want to get clicks. Where is your proof for this?
Did Musk not lie about “deal accomplished”. Wasn’t this even proven in some US institution (SEC if I remember correctly?)?
You don’t believe the MSM stretches or bends the truth? I got a bridge to sell ya!
Reuters story for example
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/
Tesla’s response
https://www.tesla.com/en_ca/blog/addressing-misleading-claims
Is there some truth to what Reuters says? No doubt.
Is there some truth to what Tesla responded with? Very likely.
Stories get twisted to have just enough truth to get whatever their agenda is across.
Under the assumption that it’s
nota lie, there’s probably sensitive information that would come out in discovery that they’d rather not reveal, and there’s enough truth to it that they might not win, such as with my example in the previous reply.I bring it up because it’s the same new manufacturing process as the 25k car. It’s a wholly new way to manufacture cars. All future cars from Tesla are going to use this new process if it works and its intention is to dramatically reduce the cost of the vehicle. If this process does not work, there is no 25k car. It’s legitimately dead. If the process works, any future car from Tesla is going to use it, and the 25k car they had planned would quite possibly be the next vehicle produced with it. Ironing out the hiccups in the robotaxi, will impact what happens with the 25k car if it is truly not cancelled, (edit: and thus if it’s not cancelled, they will be keeping it in mind while working on the cybercab)
Factually speaking, it was considered not true, but he also didn’t fight it as they were threatening the existence of the company at a very difficult time so he settled with the SEC.
This story happened a few days ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxvr3n7wlxo
To which Elon responded “No deal has been signed” - https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1927839555828220165
Is the CEO of telegram going to somehow get in trouble now? Obviously neither xAi or Telegram are public companies, but this is pretty much what happened with Elon’s tweet, if there’s any shred of truth to what Elon has said.
Edit: And I’m not excusing that Elon tweeted funding secured, it was inappropriate, but he just claims to have done what the Telegram CEO did but under more serious circumstances.
Edit: Later edit in case you see this later… but here’s a video where Franz the lead designer responds to the claims https://x.com/BLKMDL3/status/1777029442935964066. “stay tuned, don’t always believe in what you read”
Where is the proof? Why didn’t Tesla sue Reuters if they are lying?
Conspiracy theory bullshit. Where is the proof?
Where is the proof other than corporate PR? Send me a BOM analysis based on current estimates (with details) and other relevant financial details. This is not a big ask, there are solid BOM analyses for many “leading edge” hardware products (I’ve done professional work on this, so I would know).
The point I am making is that I am not buying your “judicial roleplay” (pretending that this is a court of law with all the theatrics about the nature of proving something). Not to mention it’s pretty sophomoric of you to assume that unless a (US!) court rules on something, then we have to immediately defer to corporate PR copytext and we cannot make any analysis beyond that.
I’ve lived in the US. I know how badly Americans reflexively react to someone not buying into their local assumptions. So in a sense I understand you.
But that doesn’t mean I am going to buy into your bullshit.