zlacker

I read it more along the lines of "you may use these as you wish but don't try to turn around and screw the electrification of transportation, harming humanity's future for your own short-term gain". Musk isn't doing it for money after all.

>>TeMPOr+(OP)
> Musk isn't doing it for money after all.

No, it's for money.

It's the charging stations. There aren't enough of them, and it's the biggest problem they have.

Tesla needs the big manufacturers to build electric cars so they will put charging stations everywhere.

>>fragsw+j1
You're right that the problem is they can't scale charging stations up fast enough. But my point was that Musk is running Tesla not to earn money, but to fix a particular global problem. His terminal goal is electrification of transport, as opposed to typical terminal goals of many CEOs, i.e. "to have a lot of money". Money is only instrumental for Tesla.

>>TeMPOr+(OP)
Tesla is a public company, Musk is reported to have a 32% stake [1], so is responsible to the other shareholders. If the decision didn't make business sense, he would expect to be replaced as Chairman and CEO.

There may be altruism and mission involved, but Tesla isn't (and shouldn't be) a charity.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Tesla_Motors

>>graeha+T2
> There may be altruism and mission involved, but Tesla isn't (and shouldn't be) a charity.

Altruism and being a company are not mutually exclusive. In case of Tesla, being a company is probably the most effective way to achieve its goal. It's the difference between instrumental and terminal values I'm trying to point out; i.e. Tesla is earning money to electrify transport, not building cars to earn money.