Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year::Tesla may agree to buy the truck back at the original price minus “$0.25/mile driven” and any damages and repairs.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      102
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      GM wasn’t harsh enough IMHO. They should have black listed people who immediately flipped base C8s for significantly more than MSRP. Base C8s (not Z51) going for over 100k, with miles on them, was fucking ridiculous.

      I’ll say it now: car dealers are useless dinosaurs and there is no point to having them anymore. I don’t need a dealer to tell me what options I want on my car. I can select those on a webpage after I’ve reviewed the available options. I need a place to take my car for service if it’s a factory failure / warranty work. I can do the rest myself or pay another focused professional to do the work.

      • Altima NEO
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1811 months ago

        Yeah, pretty much every Hummer EV I saw was at a dealership lot, used, and marked up $100k

      • Bone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1011 months ago

        I really like your second paragraph!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        Agreed, but I absolutely need somewhere to test drive the car as well before purchasing. There’s no way I would buy a car without it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          I would agree with that. I had a car shipped by an online sales company and when I showed up to test drive & but it, I didn’t actually fit in the car properly, so I didn’t end up buying it. Such is the life of being tall.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months ago

            I’m just shy of 6 feet so not excessively tall by any means, but I test drove the Fiat 500 some years ago, and found there is no way for me to be comfortable in it. Interestingly the Mini Cooper was very comfortable, and could have easily accommodated someone taller - as long as anybody sitting behind you didn’t have legs.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              Yeah the Fiat is VERY small and I concur on the Mini. I’m a bit over 6’ and I found regular Minis to be very comfortable with headroom with the countryman’s being a bit better on the backseat situation 😂

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4111 months ago

      I’m no fan of flipping/scalping but the choice of the degradation of ownership is much worse. If they really own the car then they aught to be able to resell it.

      Prediction; this will extend beyond just high end cars.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        611 months ago

        Like with other manufacturers with similar limitations, the limitation for resale is only for the first year. It literally is just to try and prevent people buying and flipping the car for a profit. If you don’t like the vehicle you can sell it back to Tesla outside the normal return window. Or wait a year and sell it to someone else.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

          The reduction in ownership rights is worse than scalpers. Not sure why you assume this is pure benevolence instead of companies making more money via their control of property you paid for.

          • gian
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months ago

            The reduction in ownership rights is worse than scalpers.

            I suppose it depends: would you like to at least have the item or be able to buy it only at a 3x price, if ever ?
            Other high brand cars have even more stringent clauses (like, you cannot repaint the car in a certain color to not ridicule the brand). People are even perpetually banned from buying from the brand in some cases.

            Not sure why you assume this is pure benevolence instead of companies making more money via their control of property you paid for.

            It is not benevolence, it is a try to solve a real problem that they think it could arise.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I think it is not in anyone’s best interests to lessen their ownerships rights to maybe save money. Their choice is also bad for me in that it shows companies they can to it too and could become the norm.

              If a manufacture has a good reason to not sell to someone that would be fine but it is none of their business what colour I paint my car, or who I can resell it too.

              If they wanted to solve the problem they could make more cars to meet demand (without the needless use of microchips, if that is still the bottleneck).

              • gian
                link
                fedilink
                English
                211 months ago

                I think it is not in anyone’s best interests to lessen their ownerships rights to maybe save money. Their choice is also bad for me in that it shows companies they can to it too and could become the norm.

                While yours are valid concerns, that type of restriction works only on specific items. I don’t see a car manufacturer pull the same stunt on a mass production car (or any other mass production item for the matter) because the problem this try to solve does not exist in the first place, maybe Tesla just think (true or false that it can be or based on the data they have) that the Cybertruck will be some sort of “status symbol” which would attract scalpers or the like of them.

                In the end this is a battle Musk cannot win: he will be damned if he do (to ban resell in the first year) and he will be damned if he don’t (and thus allowing scalpers). He can only choose why he will be damned so he choose a way that maybe is more friendly (or less enemy from your point of view) to the consumer.

                If a manufacture has a good reason to not sell to someone that would be fine but it is none of their business what colour I paint my car, or who I can resell it too.

                I can agree with you, but the fact that the manufacturer put these restrictions and people still buy their cars means that maybe it does not really matter to the buyers since having the car is much more important that being able to repaint it pink, in their view.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  111 months ago

                  People often choose what isn’t in their best interests but that doesn’t invalidate the criticism. I am unsure if this should/could simple be illegal but I will argue social stigma should be applied to people who don’t care about themselves or others.

                  My concern is companies will do it anyway for their own gain, regardless of if it was actually a cure to the issue of scalping, because users will let them.

                  Musk’s has enough variety of questionable choices but I’ll damn him here for needlessly making low supply, the cause of scalping in the first place.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months ago

          Only for the first year is bs. I bought an object, I own it and I decide when to put it on sale for whatever reason I want, because you know, I own it.

          If Tesla doesn’t like that they can stop selling vehicles to the public. Or they can come up with something creative like renting them, or only selling one of this trucks to someone who has proven to be a fan boy and have already brought 1 or 2 Tesla’s before

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months ago

            Or… Get this… You can just not buy the fucking car if you don’t like the terms. You’re not forced to buy a Cybertruck at launch.

            Once production increases I’m sure this restriction will be removed just like most other vehicle resale restrictions from other manufacturers. Not all though, Ferrari has limitations even on things like paint color and wraps, Deadmau5 completely got rid of his wrapped Purrari because of that bullshit once Ferrari started trying to enforce it.

            But none of you people will be in comments talking about the resale restrictions being removed once production is ramped, just complaining now about hypotheticals for a vehicle you never intend on purchasing to begin with because you either don’t like Tesla or Musk specifically.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              211 months ago

              Problem is, the more manufacturers pull this kind of shit the more it becomes normal. At some point your entry level yaris has some kind of stupid rules like this and maybe it spills over other industries too. Again, how about we stick to my property is my property and I decide what to do with it, the way it should be.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months ago

          the limitation for resale is only for the first year.

          I hate the “slippery slope” argument, but in this case…

          What if the limitation was 2 or 5 years? What if the fine was $100,000 or a million? If they get away with lesser restrictions, why wouldn’t they? The point is, companies already have way too much power over what a private person does with things they legally bought (Right To Repair, anyone?) and this seems like an escalation of that…

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          I feel like if they want to prevent flipping for profit, make the agreement that you can’t sell it for more than you bought it for, but still allow the sale. Otherwise you’re not policing the right thing.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          How about the manufacturer builds enough stock so scalping makes no sense? I believe that if I buy a product I am entitled to do whatever I want with it as long as it doesn’t brake the law. I hate scalping too, no1 did anything when it happened to GPUs or consoles or toilet paper during covid, so why are cars special?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 months ago

            Stock does not just appear out of thin air. Manufacturing takes time to ramp up. So it’s often not possible to produce enough for a high demand product.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              So maybe don’t release a model until you have at least a decent amount of units? Still doesn’t explain why cars are any different than other products that are scalped. Why are they not lobbying to create laws against such practices?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Real estate and Ticketmaster: “Fuck yeah, flip that shit and inflate our markets to insanity!”

      Auto industry: “Fuck you, we do the inflating around here. Pay me!”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Ford notoriously sued John Cena for exactly that reason with his Ford GT

      It really is to protect consumers from scalpers.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          711 months ago

          Dealerships suck and everyone except the dealers themselves will be over the moon once they’re gone, manufacturers most of all.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1511 months ago

          Not really. I don’t particularly like them, but they don’t contribute much to the cost of cars. They barely make anything selling the car. That’s why they are always pushing extended warranties, accessories and trying to get you back in for service. Most of these guys are just hustling and getting as bad a deal as the rest of us.

          The dealers are under huge pressure from the manufacturers to move cars. They are given sales targets they have to hit or they don’t get paid. That’s why they end up selling a car for like $500 profit or even break even. There’s a good episode of This American Life called “Cars”.

          Of course, none of this applies to high-demand cars that sell themselves. They will mark those up like crazy to survive because the manufacturer doesn’t pay a bonus for those and barely gives them any inventory.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          There’s nothing to stop anyone from buying a single unit and scalping it

          It’s not “bizarre” in the slightest unless you’ve never heard of the concept of scalping.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -311 months ago

            There’s nothing to stop anyone from buying a single unit and scalping it

            Except, you know, the economic principles of supply and demand

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              Except, you know, supply and demand are flipped on their fucking heads. That’s why this clause exists in the first place?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  311 months ago

                  Presumably there’s going to be very few Cybertrucks. Supercar manufactures, with their very low production rates, generally have some kind of wait list, Ferrari goes to extremes and won’t even consider selling you most stuff if you’re not already driving a more entry-level Ferrari.

                  It’s not really about the money, though: If a Sheikh comes along and wants your car, he’s just going to add double the penalty amount to his offer. It’s more about getting shitbinned by the manufacturer.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1711 months ago

      Shame though. Would absolutely love to see a guy with a garage full of these things because he couldn’t find enough crypto bros to gouge.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        I imagined them stacked on top of each other haphazardly, piled up in a garage with a sad white 30ish year old guy standing in the driveway looking sad.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      711 months ago

      Kinda curious why the company doesn’t raise their prices to fit demand then, since clearly, demand exists that allows those products to be sold for more (else the scalpers couldn’t profit). Not saying they should charge more, I’m just curious why an entirely profit-driven entity like a company wouldn’t charge as much for something as demand would allow for, it seems out of character?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4611 months ago

      Not sure what you are talking about. I have the freedom to not sign some dumbass agreement with tesla and not purchase a shitty looking cyber truck, and I will use that very freedom. No one is being forced to take this deal.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3911 months ago

        You have the freedom as long as it stays niche. Having no protections against such practices means they have a chance of becoming so commonplace as to be unavoidable.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2411 months ago

        “Just don’t buy it” is a time-limited argument. If it becomes the norm to require signing a contract for ownership then you’ll have to argue “just don’t buy a car”. If you don’t like cars then maybe that’s okay but for other items that position sucks ass.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months ago

          At some point, people need to band together and do something. Like $12 hotdogs and beer at stadiums. If people would just collectively say no to shit like that and refuse to buy them for a number of games, they would be forced to bring the prices back down to something more reasonable. But we as a group just cannot seem to do things until an extreme is met. To put it in perspective what I am saying is, if everyone just didn’t buy it, then it wouldn’t become the norm.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            I appreciate this, and I agree with you completely. However, I think you’re greatly overestimating the strength of principles and the willingness to boycott of the average person. Which is why we have $12 hot dogs.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              Yeah, I completely agree. There’s no way it would ever happen, but damn wouldn’t it be beautiful to watch if it did.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -211 months ago

          It’s an extreme edge case that car companies use when they have low units and very high demand, this applies to like 10 car models lol. Definitely no indication that it’s going to become the norm.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months ago

            If there’s monetary intensive for them to control reselling then I think it’s fair to assume. Cars manufactures have already tried to charge a subscription for heated seats already in the car and presumably stopped due to a perceive a backlash which would cost them more money (for now).

            In software it’s very common to be unable to resell a purchase and it should be no surprise when car manufactures try to prevent functionality being used by 2nd hand owners (if they are not already doing that).

      • Jessica
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1311 months ago

        Pfft, look at this cat over here…Why would you not want to own a life size version of a poorly made pinewood derby car-truck? I, for one, am willing to let them install a 5G chip in my brain as an accountabili-buddy. I bet I survive at least 3 months with the bill gates chip!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The dumbass agreement is the problem, not the buyer.

        Imagine this:

        If I were the second hand buyer of such a vehicle (yes, that means the original buyer has violated the dumbass agreement), would you say then that I am bound to the dumbass agreement too?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11211 months ago

    “ Given the subscription model of much of the software Tesla EVs use, resale can be complicated. The Full Self-Driving feature, which costs up to $199 per month, is not transferable to a new owner, Fast Company reported.”

    Just another reason I’m never buying

      • StarDreamer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You don’t understand. It’s not like the self-driving feature is just software where they can price it at whatever they want. It’s physically consuming brain cells every month. And those aren’t free you know!

        ::: spoiler Do I really need a \s tag for this or does this tin foil hat make me look fat? :::

      • GreenM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        For my region it’s one time fee 9k $ “only”.
        It is hilarious given the fact you can’t legally use it so it turns into better break asistent 😅

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        They should make a discount for every person the self driving software hits. That shit would be basically free.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        That’s just the new subscription cost. It is meant a san alternative to the full purchase cost.

        As functionality has been added, the price has increased over the years, the current price is $12,000 for the FSD upgrade over basic Autopilot.

        The subscription also lets you try it out and cancel if you don’t want it instead of having to make the decision up front for thousands of dollars.

      • Peanut
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2711 months ago

        I mean it’s not actual “full self drive” to begin with. It’s a lame impersonation of more advanced self driving vehicles that aren’t even being sold yet. That doesn’t matter to the elon fans though.

        The lie that actually gets people killed, while also tainting the overall perception of autonomous vehicles. Thanks elon.

      • Clutch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1211 months ago

        It’s just that the license isn’t transferable. The second owner has to (re)license the software from Tesla. Irrespective of whether the seller has a “perpetual” license.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months ago

          I guess if your license could be transferred to your new vehicle this would kinda make sense —- although frankly I’d expect a recurring revenue subscription model instead. Basically this feels like they’ve just been throwing shit at the wall while failing to deliver the feature.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1011 months ago

        I read it as the second owner would have to pay for it themselves to (re)unlock it. So Tesla would get paid twice for the feature in one car.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          It is a monthly subscription. I am not sure what the problem is? the new owner can choose to pay it or not.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            I must have misunderstood, because I know you have to pay $12,000-15,000 (seems the price has lowered) for the FSD to be available, then pay subscription on top of that. For some reason I thought they were saying the initial $12k+ “unlock” wouldn’t transfer.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              311 months ago

              You either pay for FSD via a monthly subscription OR the full price. So it’s either $200/mo or $12,000. It’s not both. The subscription option gives you an option to try it before purchasing, or to add and remove it when you want, like for long road trips or something like that.

              It’s just two different options for people to pick from.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 months ago

                Thank you very much for clarifying. It makes sense if a subscription is not transferred but if someone does the outright payment that should be transferred. Asshole move if the one time unlock isn’t.

  • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9611 months ago

    Capitalism is so schizophrenic. Is supply and demand in a free market meant to decide the value of goods or not?? If regulations and penalties are required, why not across the board??

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2411 months ago

      A company is not capitalism. Pure capitalism without any regulation doesn’t work, because it tends towards having one big company that controls everything. However, every single company by itself strives towards that goal, bribing politicians to get its way when necessary. Thus, if those bribes go unpunished (like through the Citizens United decision in the US), capitalism eventually eliminates itself.

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      Tesla doesn’t want some other company to buy all its vehicles and turn around and sell them at a higher price, damaging the press around the Tesla brand and stopping its cars from getting to would-be Tesla super fans. It’s the same reason stores will sometimes say “limit 2 per customer” on certain items.

      That’s one reason, anyway.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months ago

      If regulations and penalties are required, why not across the board??

      for thee, not for me

      as always

      • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        you don’t want to make scalpers rich doing it

        But why not? Surely people have the freedom to spend their money on legal goods?

        I understand the situation; Tesla can’t make money selling to the general public at scalper rates, and scalpers are somewhat eating into Tesla profits. It’s all a scheme to ensure money goes to corporations first. That’s why the pharmaceutical industry is so fucked.

  • torpak
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9211 months ago

    The best solution to this problem is not to buy one in the first place.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1511 months ago

        He probably always was a bit of a right-wing loon, but everything about him over the last few years screams “cry for help”.

        If he were a normal pleb, he’d have probably lost his job, or had a friend tell him that he needs to seek professional help. Because he’s a billionaire, I assume people just say he’s “eccentric” and laugh while people push him to do more crazy shit.

        He doesn’t realise it, but people are laughing at him, not with him. He’s a performing monkey for the apathetic, and aspirational for the morally questionable.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months ago

          I think he has an inkling of that now. Since he got booed off stage multiple times and locked himself in isolation for a while.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        711 months ago

        Apparently some people are okay with extreme racism so long as you convert it into money first.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4611 months ago

      I used to think Teslas were cool. Now I just see the specter of Elon. Regardless, these look like a test for suckers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      I honestly would rather have a cyber truck than a generic F150. Fuck Musk though, so I’ll pass.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          011 months ago

          They sell based on name recognition and history. Their father, grandfather, and great grandfather all bought a Ford so they will too. They have tens of decades of repair shops with experience, cheap third party parts replacements, and because many people just keep buying the same thing without ever doing any comparison or thinking about it.

  • Kevnyon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7611 months ago

    While this is an asshole move, companies like Ferrari do stuff like this too. They, for example, do not allow certain modifications on their cars and if they find out that you have done them, they will ask you to restore those parts back to originals. It is unreal how much car companies try to get from us.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2911 months ago

      Papa Enzo knows best. Don’t understand how that’s legal unless it’s some sort of lease agreement

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -211 months ago

        Well, you’re welcome to not buy a Ferrari if you don’t like the strings attached, right?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3611 months ago

          Sure. But ownership comes with certain rights by definition. If you don’t have those rights, you don’t really own the thing. You’re just paying to subscribe to their club.

          • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 months ago

            Right, the club being Ferrari owners. They maintain a specific image of owner, and part of that image is “if you don’t like it then go buy another car”. I think it’s silly too, but for what they cost it’s not as if you’re bumming for a daily driver at unfavorable APRs.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -911 months ago

            Sure. But, again, just don’t buy it if you don’t like the conditions. Not sure why that’s so controversial to say.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          I am also not welcome to buy a Ferrari because

          1. I can’t afford one.
          2. if I could afford it, I would buy something sensible and invest most of my cash for the future. (Land, Gold, etc.)
    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      811 months ago

      Implying this, less attractive than a Lego brick, thing is as desirable as a Ferrari is… Insane

      • Kevnyon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        One of the things they don’t allow is removing their logos and the ferrari name off the car, so I suppose adding a hook would be fine. I don’t know if those cars are built for it, but I do think they would allow it… Felt really stupid typing that, as if they need to “allow” anything on a car you would own.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    60
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    So is this thing actually called a “Cybertruck”? Because that sounds like something my 7-year-old would come up with. I hadn’t really given it much thought until now…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6011 months ago

    Forget the obvious bullshit that is being unable to sell it. What’s this about autopilot/FSD not being transferable?

    Who the hell would buy this monstrosity of a truck. Be sure not to buy FSD since it will be a lost cost and never recouped for a capability that really doesn’t work yet. $12,000 down the drain.

    • Broccoli
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      Who would buy it? The same type of people buying new BMWs. We all hate them, but they sell like crazy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -8
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If you pre ordered it, you locked in the fsd price at the time which was 7k I believe.

      If you add FSD to a trade in service, you’ll get 2-3000 back.

      So it’s not as terrible a deal as buying it at full price right now where its unquestionably not worth it.

      But don’t expect anything beyond level 2 for the lifetime of the vehicle.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5711 months ago

    It’s shit behavior that should be illegal, but I also can’t feel bad for any moron that sees this truck and still agrees to buy it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      Is this to be an asshole, or to avoid people reselling the car at x2 the price because of the lack of supply during the first year?

      I hate Musk, but if this is intended to prevent price go urging, it might be a good thing (see nvidia scalpers)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        Even with the best of intentions, which I doubt is the case here, a company that sells you a product shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what you do with the product once you’ve purchased it. They can be selective about who they sell products to, and use that as a barrier to attempt to stop scalpers. But once I own something if I want to turn around and resell it the manufacturer should have no say in that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -2411 months ago

      So because your personal taste is not in favor of this car, you don’t feel bad for people who happen to like it. Got it. Moral superiority is alive and well.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4611 months ago

    This is great: I was so frustrated by lack of availability for XBox, from all the scalpers. Same with tickets to pretty much everything. Same with Raspberry Pi. Look at how the eEVs like the Hummer and Lightning were hurt by both dealers and scalpers making vehicles hard to get and excessively priced

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1211 months ago

      Scalping works great for those lower ticket items with tiny profit margins and high demand. Idk if it’s something cybertruck needs to worry about being none of those things.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4511 months ago

    Implying they produce enough to sell any at all, anyone is dumb enough to buy one, anyone if dumb enough to buy it off another dummy who bought one.

    This is just Tesla stirring up a story, and trying to make it seem like anyone wants one of these monstrosities, and that they can make them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1011 months ago

      I have a friend who preordered a cybertruck. But then again he also bought a model 3 and model X.