There may be a quid-pro-quo between Tesla and Apple. During lull periods for Tesla employees, they get to work for Apple, when Tesla needs them, they get to come back. Nothing wrong, and a lot right with cross-polination between Apple and Tesla.
It would be just as benign as inviting someone like Eric Schmidt onto your board. What could possibly go wrong?
You conveniently left out of your article the rate of Apple staff departing Apple and moving over to Tesla.
It's been said by Elon Musk (so... not conjecture) to be a 5-to-1 ratio... i.e. for every Tesla employee going to Apple, five Apple staff quit and go to Tesla.
Tesla isn't in any jeopardy.
Perhaps, perhaps not. This article was simply quoting "a well-placed source at Tesla" that the losses are biting. Either you believe it, or you don't. Not a huge deal either way.
Moreover, there isn't someone similar quoted from Apple in any story that I've seen.
What a lot of people don't understand is that Elon doesn't care if Tesla goes under - as long as it it has sparked a revolution to overthrow ICE cars. In numerous interviews he has stated that he started his involvement with Tesla with the understanding that it more than likely wouldn't work. His main goal is to move humanity forward and a big part if this is breaking our addiction to oil from fragile oil states in the Middle East.
So if Tesla goes under, it will be seen as proof that electric cars are a failure, even if the reasons for Tesla's failure are unrelated to the efficacy of battery powered cars. The company has to succeed to have a lasting impact.
Most of you miss the point. Tesla is a tool to what Musks's goals ultimately are, which is is to change the dynamic of electrical vehicles as a viable solution so we move away from fossil fuels. He's largely succeeded. Before the Model S, electric cars were laughed at as big golf carts. He's showing different and proving that false. The over the top performance in some of the models is proof of concept and a way to get the buyers who care about specs to $$ for future investments. He's opened the patents mostly, he WANTS competitors because he wants the game to change. I don't think he sees an Apple electric car as the threat many of you think it should be.
And then the Saudis, Putin and shale oil put a couple torpedoes into the base premise and it has all rather sprung a leak.
Electric cars are not in the luxury category.
Looking for a much needed charging station, then waiting a significant time for enough charge to move on is not luxury !
Much needed charging station?!?
If you are driving more than 200 or even 100 miles a day, whether a car is "luxury" or not is the least of your worries
Have you driven today's german dual turbo-charged autos? They are insanely fast. If that is your target market you have to match or beat the performance of your competition. He's not going after vegans in a Prius.
I find your comment very insulting. I own a Prius and I am a vegetarian. I demand an apology
And then the Saudis, Putin and shale oil put a couple torpedoes into the base premise and it has all rather sprung a leak.
Only for a year or two, once the shale production has dropped away and that is soon going to happen just watch the price of oil, The Saudi's know exactly what they are doing
Tesla doesn't really offer anything new compared to the competition.
It offers an all-electric vehicle that is fun to drive, which ships today, and which has received unequivocal praise by most reviewers.
Apple could do a lot of things, we'll see. My guess is anything they do is more in the 2020 timeframe. I mean Tesla announced the Model X and had a prototype of it to show people back in, what, 2011? They're just now starting to ship these (end of month production release). These things take time.
As for other manufacturers competing with Tesla in 2 years when they are saying the Model 3 will ship... we'll see. Tesla has a huge head start in rolling out a key component: Supercharger network. This Tesla-only charging network is widespread, and the fastest charging network by far. It's free. By 2017 it'll be blanketing the nation, and many other countries. They'll have built the Gigafactory.
If anything, I'd like to see Apple partner with Tesla, perhaps on batteries and the Supercharger network, if nothing else.
So if Tesla goes under, it will be seen as proof that electric cars are a failure, even if the reasons for Tesla's failure are unrelated to the efficacy of battery powered cars. The company has to succeed to have a lasting impact.
Just like when MITS collapsed and the Altair computer line was discontinued, thus spelling the end of personal / home computers... Or when Apple introduced the Newton which failed, scaring them away from hand-held electronics in perpetuity... or when the first battle tanks were introduced in WWI, and most of them broke down before reaching the front and those that didn't failed to cause a breakout causing armies to dismiss the idea of armored fighting vehicles... /s
If Tesla goes under I don't think it will have a major impact on the ultimate success of electric cars. They will succeed or fail on their own merits. Tesla just pushed forward the timeline. If Tesla does fail, they still will have released a number of important patents, expanded an early market, shown that 'electric vehicle' does not equal 'flimsy golf car', and (apparently) trained a number of engineers who went on to other electric vehicle companies.
Electric cars are the future - it's not a matter if by when. Indeed the first cars were electric, not gas. Gas only won because energy density of batteries sucked worse in the [URL=http://www.electricauto.org/?page=evhistory]1800's[/URL] than today, and today battery tech still hasn't really progressed that much, relatively speaking. Not enough to pass liquid chemical fuel in capacity or refill speed.
Electric cars will win eventually because of simplicity. They have far fewer parts, only one fluid (windshield washer) and compared to traditional cars zero maintenance.
And it's not unions but car dealers fighting Tesla. Dealers make far more money on maintaining cars then selling new ones. Electric cars relegate them to buggy whip status.
My big complaint with Tesla and quite a few new cars are the infatuation with touch screens for everything. Talk about form over function - the lack of physical controls for environmental controls in particular is completely obnoxious. Most cars have real button control on the steering wheel for the stereo - but leaving out physical controls for other functions is ridiculously short sighted - from a safety perspective alone.
All luxury sedans beat 0-60mph with 6s or less, so making a slower luxury electric car is stupid because you couldn't prove that your technology is better than gas engines in performance. It's all about image such as: fastest EV and sedan on the planet with best drag coefficient for a sedan, longest range on a single charge...Without these, no one would want to buy Tesla but Nissan Leaf.
Exactly. Tesla is building its brand image as much as cars. In time they will no doubt deliver an affordable vehicle. Now they are building the mystique, the allure.
That said, I agree with Eric a bit when it comes to the Model X. They have more than proved their point with the S. I would rather see the X offer lesser performance and increased range than continue to focus on maximizing performance.
Just like when MITS collapsed and the Altair computer line was discontinued, thus spelling the end of personal / home computers... Or when Apple introduced the Newton which failed, scaring them away from hand-held electronics in perpetuity... or when the first battle tanks were introduced in WWI, and most of them broke down before reaching the front and those that didn't failed to cause a breakout causing armies to dismiss the idea of armored fighting vehicles... /s
If Tesla goes under I don't think it will have a major impact on the ultimate success of electric cars. They will succeed or fail on their own merits. Tesla just pushed forward the timeline. If Tesla does fail, they still will have released a number of important patents, expanded an early market, shown that 'electric vehicle' does not equal 'flimsy golf car', and (apparently) trained a number of engineers who went on to other electric vehicle companies.
A bit like Shockey then and the traitorous 8 then :-). I see the similarity.... I think we know who got the last laugh there... And it was not Shockley.
Though Tesla "training" a lot of engineers is a bit of a stretch. He didn'T invent the electric motor in cars after all.... Almost all car makers already have pretty big team doing hybrids in house.
I don't want Apple buying Tesla. They can duplicate anything Tesla has done and come up with a better vehicle by starting from scratch. Musk makes stupid decisions with his cars.
Like giving the Model S insane 0-60 acceleration (which is useless in real-world driving) when he could have used less powerful motors. Nobody would have complained if the Model S took 7 seconds to hit 60. The cost savings would have been significant. Cheaper motors, wiring, motor controllers and battery construction (to handle the current of his high output motors all internal connections for batteries would have to be able to withstand an enormous amount of current).
Or those stupid Falcon Wing doors of the Model X.
Musk seems to like to add features that make people go "ooh.....ahh" instead of features that actually improve the automobile.
You really don't know much about electric cars or economics. The 'insane mode' is the 128gb phone for Tesla. It does not cost much to add but it costs a ton of money retail. The huge markup increases Tesla's margins! Tesla is still supply limited on batteries, so selling more cars at a lower price is not an option right now.
The weight savings and cost savings for smaller motors is actually quite small relative to the whole car. Tesla charges enough extra for the high current (insane mode) to make the cost a non issue.
Musk is doing what is right for Tesla at the moment, and preparing for a future where he will have the batteries to make more electric cars than everyone else combined.
Exactly. Tesla is building its brand image as much as cars. In time they will no doubt deliver an affordable vehicle. Now they are building the mystique, the allure.
That said, I agree with Eric a bit when it comes to the Model X. They have more than proved their point with the S. I would rather see the X offer lesser performance and increased range than continue to focus on maximizing performance.
Decreased performance would not have increased range any more than a few percentage points. With Tesla the range king by such a huge factor this would not improve sales or profits. Insane mode markups make huge profits for Tesla and as long as nobody can compete with them, this is the best strategy.
Have you driven today's german dual turbo-charged autos? They are insanely fast. If that is your target market you have to match or beat the performance of your competition. He's not going after vegans in a Prius.
Actually my current daily driver is a BMW 550i. It's very fast, but still way behind a Model S in 0-60 or 1.4 mile. The big difference is this car will be fast all day where the Model S will reduce power due to overheating batteries, motors and controllers after a short period of spirited driving. That's why Tesla advertises 0-60 runs, but never puts the Model S on a track. It wouldn't even make one lap before slowing down.
Anyone who's driven a BMW with the twin-turbo V8 will enjoy the high torque at low RPM this engine produces. It makes the car feel even faster than it is. However, if the transmission is in the wrong gear when you hit the gas, it can still occasionally feel "sluggish" despite all that power. This is an area electric vehicles have an advantage over gas vehicles - torque on demand at all speeds. This makes electric cars "feel" faster than they actually are due to the ability of electric motors to deliver instant throttle response at all speeds (especially low speeds). Musk was concentrating on a number on a spec sheet without thinking about what the car would feel like when people drove it. Even with a slower 0-60 time it would still perform better than a similar gas vehicle in day-to-day driving (accelerating from a stop, merging into traffic) because of the ability of electric motors to deliver torque on demand.
Because of my job I regularly get a chance to drive numerous high-end cars from 3-Series BMW's up to 7-Series, Mercedes S and SL and even the occasional Rolls, Ferrari or Lamborghini. I'm quite familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the powertrains of each. I have also driven several versions of the Model S including the P85D. Outside of the blistering acceleration I find the rest of the car ho-hum. Average equipment level and the touchscreen dash is an ergonomics nightmare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgz
Those doors are extremely functional: They allow you much easier access to the rear two rows of seats (due to the headroom they provide). And they can fully open in a tight garage. Minivans only provide half that equation with sliding doors.
They are overly complex and expensive to solve a problem people weren't complaining about. I predict lots of warranty issues with these doors when the Model X finally launches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1
Clearly you don't know much about marketing high-performance and/or luxury goods.
Tesla was not looking to compete with Prius' at the start.
Model S is not luxury. It's missing loads of features other cars at that price range has. As I mentioned above, I currently drive a 550i. As a luxury car it's way ahead of a Model S in terms of features. There are sub $40K cars these days that can match the Model S for features (including things like lane departure, active cruise control, automatic braking when detecting objects, blind spot warning and all those other features Tesla brags about like they're supposed to be high tech).
You really don't know much about electric cars or economics. The 'insane mode' is the 128gb phone for Tesla. It does not cost much to add but it costs a ton of money retail. The huge markup increases Tesla's margins! Tesla is still supply limited on batteries, so selling more cars at a lower price is not an option right now.
The weight savings and cost savings for smaller motors is actually quite small relative to the whole car. Tesla charges enough extra for the high current (insane mode) to make the cost a non issue.
Musk is doing what is right for Tesla at the moment, and preparing for a future where he will have the batteries to make more electric cars than everyone else combined.
I work in the automotive industry and am quite familiar with the technology used in modern cars.
Tesla has no future. Once battery technology improves they will be steamrolled by BMW, Mercedes, Toyota and GM. Tesla has no technology that others can't duplicate with ease. And the other manufacturers have an order of magnitude more experience with manufacturing cars in production quantities.
Only for a year or two, once the shale production has dropped away and that is soon going to happen just watch the price of oil, The Saudi's know exactly what they are doing
Nope. Shale oil is a genie let out of it's bottle. It's dropping because the price of oil has fallen to a point where the production costs are uneconomic for some operations so they have had to scale back. But that's the thing, The technology has now defined the new world oil maximum price and it's a lot less than when OPEC were milking the system. Anytime the oil price tries to rise, shale oil will become economic and will ramp up in production.
The Saudi's thought they knew what they were doing, but what's actually happened is the pressure they brought to bear seems to have resulted in a sort of accelerated evolution of the technologies, which is still ongoing, and is still driving down the production costs. Whoops.
Comments
There may be a quid-pro-quo between Tesla and Apple. During lull periods for Tesla employees, they get to work for Apple, when Tesla needs them, they get to come back. Nothing wrong, and a lot right with cross-polination between Apple and Tesla.
It would be just as benign as inviting someone like Eric Schmidt onto your board. What could possibly go wrong?
You conveniently left out of your article the rate of Apple staff departing Apple and moving over to Tesla.
It's been said by Elon Musk (so... not conjecture) to be a 5-to-1 ratio... i.e. for every Tesla employee going to Apple, five Apple staff quit and go to Tesla.
Tesla isn't in any jeopardy.
Perhaps, perhaps not. This article was simply quoting "a well-placed source at Tesla" that the losses are biting. Either you believe it, or you don't. Not a huge deal either way.
Moreover, there isn't someone similar quoted from Apple in any story that I've seen.
So if Tesla goes under, it will be seen as proof that electric cars are a failure, even if the reasons for Tesla's failure are unrelated to the efficacy of battery powered cars. The company has to succeed to have a lasting impact.
Most of you miss the point. Tesla is a tool to what Musks's goals ultimately are, which is is to change the dynamic of electrical vehicles as a viable solution so we move away from fossil fuels. He's largely succeeded. Before the Model S, electric cars were laughed at as big golf carts. He's showing different and proving that false. The over the top performance in some of the models is proof of concept and a way to get the buyers who care about specs to $$ for future investments. He's opened the patents mostly, he WANTS competitors because he wants the game to change. I don't think he sees an Apple electric car as the threat many of you think it should be.
And then the Saudis, Putin and shale oil put a couple torpedoes into the base premise and it has all rather sprung a leak.
Much needed charging station?!?
If you are driving more than 200 or even 100 miles a day, whether a car is "luxury" or not is the least of your worries
Have you driven today's german dual turbo-charged autos? They are insanely fast. If that is your target market you have to match or beat the performance of your competition. He's not going after vegans in a Prius.
I find your comment very insulting. I own a Prius and I am a vegetarian. I demand an apology
And then the Saudis, Putin and shale oil put a couple torpedoes into the base premise and it has all rather sprung a leak.
Only for a year or two, once the shale production has dropped away and that is soon going to happen just watch the price of oil, The Saudi's know exactly what they are doing
Tesla doesn't really offer anything new compared to the competition.
It offers an all-electric vehicle that is fun to drive, which ships today, and which has received unequivocal praise by most reviewers.
Apple could do a lot of things, we'll see. My guess is anything they do is more in the 2020 timeframe. I mean Tesla announced the Model X and had a prototype of it to show people back in, what, 2011? They're just now starting to ship these (end of month production release). These things take time.
As for other manufacturers competing with Tesla in 2 years when they are saying the Model 3 will ship... we'll see. Tesla has a huge head start in rolling out a key component: Supercharger network. This Tesla-only charging network is widespread, and the fastest charging network by far. It's free. By 2017 it'll be blanketing the nation, and many other countries. They'll have built the Gigafactory.
If anything, I'd like to see Apple partner with Tesla, perhaps on batteries and the Supercharger network, if nothing else.
So if Tesla goes under, it will be seen as proof that electric cars are a failure, even if the reasons for Tesla's failure are unrelated to the efficacy of battery powered cars. The company has to succeed to have a lasting impact.
Just like when MITS collapsed and the Altair computer line was discontinued, thus spelling the end of personal / home computers... Or when Apple introduced the Newton which failed, scaring them away from hand-held electronics in perpetuity... or when the first battle tanks were introduced in WWI, and most of them broke down before reaching the front and those that didn't failed to cause a breakout causing armies to dismiss the idea of armored fighting vehicles... /s
If Tesla goes under I don't think it will have a major impact on the ultimate success of electric cars. They will succeed or fail on their own merits. Tesla just pushed forward the timeline. If Tesla does fail, they still will have released a number of important patents, expanded an early market, shown that 'electric vehicle' does not equal 'flimsy golf car', and (apparently) trained a number of engineers who went on to other electric vehicle companies.
Electric cars will win eventually because of simplicity. They have far fewer parts, only one fluid (windshield washer) and compared to traditional cars zero maintenance.
And it's not unions but car dealers fighting Tesla. Dealers make far more money on maintaining cars then selling new ones. Electric cars relegate them to buggy whip status.
My big complaint with Tesla and quite a few new cars are the infatuation with touch screens for everything. Talk about form over function - the lack of physical controls for environmental controls in particular is completely obnoxious. Most cars have real button control on the steering wheel for the stereo - but leaving out physical controls for other functions is ridiculously short sighted - from a safety perspective alone.
Exactly. Tesla is building its brand image as much as cars. In time they will no doubt deliver an affordable vehicle. Now they are building the mystique, the allure.
That said, I agree with Eric a bit when it comes to the Model X. They have more than proved their point with the S. I would rather see the X offer lesser performance and increased range than continue to focus on maximizing performance.
Just like when MITS collapsed and the Altair computer line was discontinued, thus spelling the end of personal / home computers... Or when Apple introduced the Newton which failed, scaring them away from hand-held electronics in perpetuity... or when the first battle tanks were introduced in WWI, and most of them broke down before reaching the front and those that didn't failed to cause a breakout causing armies to dismiss the idea of armored fighting vehicles... /s
If Tesla goes under I don't think it will have a major impact on the ultimate success of electric cars. They will succeed or fail on their own merits. Tesla just pushed forward the timeline. If Tesla does fail, they still will have released a number of important patents, expanded an early market, shown that 'electric vehicle' does not equal 'flimsy golf car', and (apparently) trained a number of engineers who went on to other electric vehicle companies.
A bit like Shockey then and the traitorous 8 then :-). I see the similarity.... I think we know who got the last laugh there... And it was not Shockley.
Though Tesla "training" a lot of engineers is a bit of a stretch. He didn'T invent the electric motor in cars after all.... Almost all car makers already have pretty big team doing hybrids in house.
I don't want Apple buying Tesla. They can duplicate anything Tesla has done and come up with a better vehicle by starting from scratch. Musk makes stupid decisions with his cars.
Like giving the Model S insane 0-60 acceleration (which is useless in real-world driving) when he could have used less powerful motors. Nobody would have complained if the Model S took 7 seconds to hit 60. The cost savings would have been significant. Cheaper motors, wiring, motor controllers and battery construction (to handle the current of his high output motors all internal connections for batteries would have to be able to withstand an enormous amount of current).
Or those stupid Falcon Wing doors of the Model X.
Musk seems to like to add features that make people go "ooh.....ahh" instead of features that actually improve the automobile.
You really don't know much about electric cars or economics. The 'insane mode' is the 128gb phone for Tesla. It does not cost much to add but it costs a ton of money retail. The huge markup increases Tesla's margins! Tesla is still supply limited on batteries, so selling more cars at a lower price is not an option right now.
The weight savings and cost savings for smaller motors is actually quite small relative to the whole car. Tesla charges enough extra for the high current (insane mode) to make the cost a non issue.
Musk is doing what is right for Tesla at the moment, and preparing for a future where he will have the batteries to make more electric cars than everyone else combined.
Exactly. Tesla is building its brand image as much as cars. In time they will no doubt deliver an affordable vehicle. Now they are building the mystique, the allure.
That said, I agree with Eric a bit when it comes to the Model X. They have more than proved their point with the S. I would rather see the X offer lesser performance and increased range than continue to focus on maximizing performance.
Decreased performance would not have increased range any more than a few percentage points. With Tesla the range king by such a huge factor this would not improve sales or profits. Insane mode markups make huge profits for Tesla and as long as nobody can compete with them, this is the best strategy.
IT has paid for nothing, except possibly brand awareness, a part of the marketing budget, Tesla's bleeding cash.
By the time they sell that "affordable" cars, they'll be competing with every other car makers in that segment. You think those people are idiots?
Tesla doesn't really offer anything new compared to the competition.
Apple could offer something that others don't by offering a completely integrated cabin environment in a self driving car.
A kind of super limo or train car... for the modern age.
Tesla is not offering anything new? They have 2x the range of the competition. They out accelerate 95% of the market.
Have you driven today's german dual turbo-charged autos? They are insanely fast. If that is your target market you have to match or beat the performance of your competition. He's not going after vegans in a Prius.
Actually my current daily driver is a BMW 550i. It's very fast, but still way behind a Model S in 0-60 or 1.4 mile. The big difference is this car will be fast all day where the Model S will reduce power due to overheating batteries, motors and controllers after a short period of spirited driving. That's why Tesla advertises 0-60 runs, but never puts the Model S on a track. It wouldn't even make one lap before slowing down.
Anyone who's driven a BMW with the twin-turbo V8 will enjoy the high torque at low RPM this engine produces. It makes the car feel even faster than it is. However, if the transmission is in the wrong gear when you hit the gas, it can still occasionally feel "sluggish" despite all that power. This is an area electric vehicles have an advantage over gas vehicles - torque on demand at all speeds. This makes electric cars "feel" faster than they actually are due to the ability of electric motors to deliver instant throttle response at all speeds (especially low speeds). Musk was concentrating on a number on a spec sheet without thinking about what the car would feel like when people drove it. Even with a slower 0-60 time it would still perform better than a similar gas vehicle in day-to-day driving (accelerating from a stop, merging into traffic) because of the ability of electric motors to deliver torque on demand.
Because of my job I regularly get a chance to drive numerous high-end cars from 3-Series BMW's up to 7-Series, Mercedes S and SL and even the occasional Rolls, Ferrari or Lamborghini. I'm quite familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the powertrains of each. I have also driven several versions of the Model S including the P85D. Outside of the blistering acceleration I find the rest of the car ho-hum. Average equipment level and the touchscreen dash is an ergonomics nightmare.
Those doors are extremely functional: They allow you much easier access to the rear two rows of seats (due to the headroom they provide). And they can fully open in a tight garage. Minivans only provide half that equation with sliding doors.
They are overly complex and expensive to solve a problem people weren't complaining about. I predict lots of warranty issues with these doors when the Model X finally launches.
Clearly you don't know much about marketing high-performance and/or luxury goods.
Tesla was not looking to compete with Prius' at the start.
Model S is not luxury. It's missing loads of features other cars at that price range has. As I mentioned above, I currently drive a 550i. As a luxury car it's way ahead of a Model S in terms of features. There are sub $40K cars these days that can match the Model S for features (including things like lane departure, active cruise control, automatic braking when detecting objects, blind spot warning and all those other features Tesla brags about like they're supposed to be high tech).
You really don't know much about electric cars or economics. The 'insane mode' is the 128gb phone for Tesla. It does not cost much to add but it costs a ton of money retail. The huge markup increases Tesla's margins! Tesla is still supply limited on batteries, so selling more cars at a lower price is not an option right now.
The weight savings and cost savings for smaller motors is actually quite small relative to the whole car. Tesla charges enough extra for the high current (insane mode) to make the cost a non issue.
Musk is doing what is right for Tesla at the moment, and preparing for a future where he will have the batteries to make more electric cars than everyone else combined.
I work in the automotive industry and am quite familiar with the technology used in modern cars.
Tesla has no future. Once battery technology improves they will be steamrolled by BMW, Mercedes, Toyota and GM. Tesla has no technology that others can't duplicate with ease. And the other manufacturers have an order of magnitude more experience with manufacturing cars in production quantities.
Tesla is not offering anything new? They have 2x the range of the competition. They out accelerate 95% of the market.
They're not. A car goes a to B, overpriced battery, yep, nothing more.
You do know Tesla uses PANASONIC TECH mostly don't you.
This is not Tesla's tech at all and those batteries are not twice the density of the competition.
That the tech he uses isn't at the fringe and perfectly accessible to many.
If LI-S comes up, Tesla will dump what they do now and use that instead.
As for the rest,
The car experience is basicaly the same as 120 years ago. Tesla changes nothing.
An expensive car for gearheads. The first electric cars 100+ years ago were also like this.
Only for a year or two, once the shale production has dropped away and that is soon going to happen just watch the price of oil, The Saudi's know exactly what they are doing
Nope. Shale oil is a genie let out of it's bottle. It's dropping because the price of oil has fallen to a point where the production costs are uneconomic for some operations so they have had to scale back. But that's the thing, The technology has now defined the new world oil maximum price and it's a lot less than when OPEC were milking the system. Anytime the oil price tries to rise, shale oil will become economic and will ramp up in production.
The Saudi's thought they knew what they were doing, but what's actually happened is the pressure they brought to bear seems to have resulted in a sort of accelerated evolution of the technologies, which is still ongoing, and is still driving down the production costs. Whoops.