Toxic decision on Tesla’s part. Yet another fire needing to be put out that never should have started in the first place. They’re really making things more difficult for themselves.
This isn't really a single decision, it's an attitude baked into Tesla's philosophy. You don't own the car; you just decide where to drive it. Tesla owns your car in every meaningful way (except liability apparently).
The comment below has some questions for you. This is all information you would have provided if you actually knew what you were talking about. The fact that you didn't leads me to think you are a troller who just likes to say things that make people angry.
I don't know if you're trolling or what, but the truth is interesting. None of the US domestic automakers buy reports from Munro. They sell information to Japanese, Korean, Chinese and European automakers.
I cannot possibly see how a dockless bike share company is worth $200M. Another bloated valuation to add to the trend of overvalued SV companies. I barely see anyone in SF use any of the bikeshare bikes. Ford, JUMP, any of them. Once again Uber demonstrates it does not know how to spend money. Well done.
According to Brad Bao of Limebike, generally the cost of a bike is covered in 4 months.
In a recent Time magazine piece on bike sharing, the Chinese company Ofo is listed as being able to produce a bike for $50 USD. Assuming you’re charging $1 per hour, and even factoring in depreciation and maintenance, I don’t think it’s hard to see how bikesharing could be financially lucrative.
These bike sharing startups may actually have a business that is capable of generating an operating profit. The trouble comes when they produce 2x or 3x the bikes needed in a city, and end up with junkyards full of bikes.
'Right. The unique economics then comes back to the start. There are two parts. To the bike itself is straight up that all bikes are roughly about $300 at a manufacturer cost. You’re looking at retail price of this equivalent bike, maybe $900 to $1,000. Manufacturer’s bike, the top bike manufacturer in the world.'.
They charge $1 for a 30 minute ride. If we believe that they recoup the cost in 90 days, they're doing $3.33 in revenue per day, or roughly 3.33 half-hour rides per day. The breakeven on the bike itself would be at 300 rides at $1 each.
A quick Google search shows that well-reviewed e-bikes are commercially available from $650 and up. JUMP charges $2 per half-hour ride (per their website). They would need to generate 325 rides to break even. It doesn't seem that the payback period on the bike itself is meaningfully longer than a traditional bike.
Keep in mind, this is assuming that JUMP is paying anything close to retail on e-bikes. Anyone who visits a HKTDC or Canton Fair trade show will have seen that there are some seriously impressive e-bikes (folding, lightweight, 15MPH), available for a fraction of $650 if you're buying in bulk.
EDIT: Changed $6.66 in revenue per day to $3.33. My mistake.
> I barely see anyone in SF use any of the bikeshare bikes.
You're looking in the wrong places. I see them being used all the time. The last few days, there've also been a bunch of scooters ($1 to start, can park without locking).
