That doesn't absolve them of the fact that they underdelivered on a 8-9 figure deal by 66% over 7 years.
The fact that PepsiCo leaked this to Reuters itself means they are on the warpath right now (eg. probably trying to strong-arm a significant refund and cost reduction, or setting up the paper trail needed to begin litigation over breach of contract).
> doesn't absolve them of the fact that they underdelivered on a 8-9 figure deal by 66% over 7 years
I mean, it almost might. The problem isn't the underdelivery. It's Musk's loss of credibility. When he says it's about battery production, it might be about battery production, or it might be that he randomly changed the design at the last minute.
That's a good point, but leaking this tidbit to Reuters seems like a nuclear option (like Tesla's customer retention program failed and PepsiCo is trying to break out of the contract now).
Like I've had customers pissed off about missed deadlines, but they didn't leak or churn because we tried to keep them happy.
As is usually the case with these things, I think the key to reading them is buried at the end of the article:
> PepsiCo investor Green Century Capital Management has reservations about the company's time table for rolling out the Semis.
>
> "The fact they're running behind schedule is concerning," said Andrea Ranger, a shareholder advocate at Green Century. The investment firm has followed PepsiCo's use of electric vehicles and is pushing the company to consider its impacts on biodiversity at its annual meeting in May.
Green Century (as its name implies) has a "three-pronged approach combines a fossil fuel free sustainable investing strategy with award-winning shareholder advocacy and support of environmental nonprofits to deliver impact in a way other mutual fund families can't" (quote is from their homepage). My guess is that Green Century are the ones feeling the heat here -- they need to have their fund's emmission figures come out right yesterday, and Pepsi can't make them right unless they get their EV fleet, whether via Tesla or someone else.
If you read between the lines, you'll notice that no one at PepsiCo says anything bad about Tesla per se, only that they're committed to deploying more EVs and a bunch of other green systems. The rest of the article is other supply & logistics companies pointing out that they're having good results with trucks from other manufacturers and/or that they're also unhappy with Tesla's timeline, then someone from GC saying they don't think Tesla can hit their schedule. With the review coming up in May ("the investment firm has followed PepsiCo's use of electric vehicles and is pushing the company to consider its impacts on biodiversity at its annual meeting in May.") this is probably GC trying to convince Pepsi to stop waiting for the bloody Teslas and just get whatever EVs will get their fleet going this year.
> I keep hearing about competitors, but I never see any of their EVs, new or used. I see Teslas everywhere.
Around these parts, we see a lot of non-Tesla electrics. Many of them are not obvious at all, until you realize that an SUV has a Clean Pass sticker, and no tailpipes.
But there are also many 3s and Ys. I think, for a time, Tesla was the biggest-selling brand in the US.
Ford lost money because they went all in too fast for how late they were to the game.
And frankly it seems to be greed. They have proven hybrid and PHEV tech yet deny the US market the hybrid ranger, 'because US buyers can get the maverick'.
Overall Tesla is producing more EVs than any American company by far.
Yes, meeting the semi production goal would have been nice, but I'd rather consumer car production be prioritized.