Marketshare is how revenue is determined. If the market as whole grows but Tesla's share of it does not at least stay static, it means it is losing revenue.
That's not how revenue is determined. Revenue is determined by, well, revenue.
You can lose market share and increase revenue if the market is growing fast enough.
If you measure market share by units moved (as many markets are measured), you can raise prices and increase revenue despite lower unit sales and lost market share.
You could technically guess it that way, in an incredibly simplified market if you didn’t have the actual number available to you. The car market isn’t incredibly simplified, and we do have the revenue number.
The numbers cited in the article are units sold. Tesla has 38% of 128k cars sold. Now tell me what the Tesla revenue was using your method?
See why serious people just look at what revenue was to determine what revenue was? It’s not a “bottom up” approach, it’s a “look at that reported and audited number and tell me what it is” approach.
Did you figure out what the revenue is yet, I'm super curious about how close the "top down" approach is going to be to reality. Don't forget that Tesla has revenue from non car products!
"Microsoft needs to start asking if it should do something before it does it."
Do they? I hope they don't. I would enjoy seeing MSFT implode and losing trust of its shareholders with its cash - itll be forced to return it rather than reinvest.
Its easy to sit in the armchair and say "just be a visionary bro" when they forget Tim worked under Steve for awhile before his death - he has some sense and understanding of what it takes to get a great product out of the door.
Nvidia is generating a lot of revenue, sure - but what is the downstream impact on its customers with the hardware? All they have right now is negative returns to show for their spending. Could this change? Maybe. Is it likely? Not in my view.
As it stands, Apple has made the absolute right choice in not wasting its cash and is demonstrating discipline. Which when all this LLM mania quietens, shareholders will respect.
Arguably, it’s why investors go in for Apple in the first place: Apple’s revenue fundamentally comes from consumer spending, whose prospects are relatively well understood by the average investor.
(I think it’s why big shareholders don’t get angry that Apple doesn’t splash their cash around: their core value proposition is focused in a dizzying tech market; take it or leave it. It’s very Warren Buffett.)
This. I wouldn’t exactly give them bonus points for the handling of Apple Intelligence, but beyond that, they’ve taken a much more measured and evidence-based approach to LLMs than the rest of big tech.
If it ends up that we are in a bubble and it pops, Apple may be among the least impacted in big tech.
Toyota did this with the EV mania until they lost their nerve and got rid of Toyoda as CEO. I hope Apple doesn't fall into the same trap. (I never thought Toyota would give in either.)
What world domination though? If such a thing ever existed for example in the US, the government would move to own and control it. No firm or individual would be allowed to acquire and exercise that level of power.
I am just trying to make the point that the machines that we make tend to end up rather different to their natural analogues. The effective ones anyway. Ornithopters were not successful. And I suspect that articifial intelligences will end up very different to human intelligence.
Okay... but an airplane in essence is modelling the shape of a bird. Where do you think the inspiration for the shape of a plane came from? lmao. come on.
Humans are not all that original, we take what exists in nature and mangle it in some way to produce a thing.
The same thing will eventually happen with AI - not in our lifetime though.
"Humans make the same error but my one concern was that it doesn’t realize it’s in the wrong lane"
This is actually very deadly.. at least humans will signal / try do something in a safe manner to continue going on. An autonomous vehicle may behave in unpredictable ways and cause carnage. It only takes one incident to completely shutter it forever.
> at least humans will signal / try do something in a safe manner to continue going on
Your experience must be very different. I've been on the road long enough to know that humans will try all sorts of things to not avoid missing the turn & Tesla behaved very similarly.
FWIW, it was signalling all the right ways and no collision seemed imminent and I doubt it would have gotten into an accident. I just didn't want it acting like an asshole on the road and didn't trust it enough to let the situation play out by itself.
As someone that has driven thousands of miles, and encountered some interesting roundabouts and junctions - I cannot relate to your experience whatsoever.
"I just didn't want it acting like an asshole on the road and didn't trust it enough to let the situation play out by itself."
So basically you had to intervene and it doesnt meet the standard of a fully autonomous vehicle. Do all the mental gymnastics all you want mate lmao.
