Super interesting. They say they will launch their BEVs in 2017 and also emphasises autonomous driving. Their home page shows the silhouette of a large and a smaller model. Sounds a little too good to be true. They are only 400 people currently and they have nothing to show yet or any factory. This is difficult and it will take time to organize. I would like to know who is funding them? Is it Sergey Brin or Alphabet or someone else? They must by rich because funding a new factory and developing two new BEVs simultaneously will cost at least 2 billion USD. Not that many have that kind of money to spend on a very risky project. Anyway super interesting. The old auto industry is going to wake up to a totally different competitive landscape when Apple, Tesla and now perhaps this upstart start selling their cars in volume by 2020. The industry barrier to entry is almost gone when you skip the complexities of combustion engines, multispeed transmissions and exhaust systems. But you need to crack autonomous driving or it will not become mass market. The capital cost of long-range BEVs is simply too high to make as a mass market car. Only an autonomous taxi BEV makes sense for mass market as you have low maintenance and fuel costs and only in a taxi setting can put enough miles on the car to lowers its capital cost as well.

The race to bring the world its first autonomous taxi BEV is in full motion for sure.

I will look to see retail sales somewhere in 2019. It seems that so many Tesla personnel may have been thinking that Elon's company may be missing its mark and decided to jump ship. Certainly this is the right time.

As a stockholder for Tesla I've seen the share price get whacked despite it producing gee whiz product.

Wall Street is not happy with any company that tries to put fur on its back without rewarding stockholders. But in a growth phase all you can expect is high risk with no commensurate dividends. And to keep the "longs" from bailing you have to keep extending and embellishing the "story".

Tesla is quite capable of meeting guidance on deliveries, the problem is that they don't win all their gambles and often times seem to be snatching failure from the jaws of success - I believe is the obvious cliche.

Feature creep has caused production dislocations and the goal of an affordable car is reaching evermore into the future.

The optics are that Tesla - in the name of progress - has been made more and more appealing in order to garner an even more upscale market. The argument presented is that there is more gross margin on those sales. What I am seeing on the blog postings etc, is more discontentment among those same customers because something isn't completely perfect on its first iteration. Precipitating comments like : "I paid good money for this and I am not receiving..."

It is time for another company to enter the arena with a slightly modified strategy. Perhaps using the Nissan Leaf as the target vehicle to beat.

First, the battery compartment should be the most thermally insulated and air tight enclosure on the market, it should share the cabin A/C equipment as Tesla has done. Because the Battery is the Car when it comes to electric vehicles.

Second, the powertrain needs to be given a Top speed rating from the Engineering Dept not Marketing for the following reasons. The fact that aerodynamics at speeds above 60mph work severely against EVs as regards vehicle range. The fact that there is a financial compromise that has to be taken on motor size and gearing when an unrealistically high speed is chosen. The coarser gearing required to reach maximum speed will always impact bottom end acceleration negatively.
You can have one or the other. Or you can have both by selecting a larger frame size motor but going that route will increase powertrain cost unless profitability is sacrificed while holding on to a previously set retail price target.

Notice Prius limits out at 100mph and you don't hear complaints. The EV1 was initially 75mph. The EV1 proved that an EV with an 8 sec to sixty back in the 1990's coupled with instant throttle control was quite respectable, I saw no comments on its lack of top speed either, rather difficult unless you also condone road racing I would think. And that brings me to something that could have been trumpeted more often over at Tesla. Yes, these are quick cars, acceleration wise, but they were never intended to be used as track cars.

The TESLA Model III may be using another more common sense approach or compromise?

It may be a mass production affordable e-car instead of a monster race e-car?

The selling price may depend a lot on the battery pack size and price.

@Henrik, I also googled

When the Royal Society was formed in the 17th century they adopted the motto : Nullius in verba, which is Latin for "Take nobody's word for it".

I would hope we have a policy of full disclosure at GCC that requires viewpoints to be qualified by vested interests. You have to take my word on my stockholdings. On the evidence it would be unlikely I would make contradictory statements re Tesla unless I was still holding on to some of the Tesla story. Despite the anachronisms Tesla is still the best game in town and likely to be for at least the next five years.

I don't think you can come on here and make nonsense claims against me unless you supply the reasons. Otherwise it is you that is making the emotional response, I just call them as I see them.
The remainder of response is just plain rude. If I was looking for rudeness I would just go on YouTube.

As for the unsolicited advice to sell my stock , frankly that is none of your business.