I'm not sure there's a big ROI for Tesla to develop elaborate countermeasures.
4,750 units of the 60kWh car at $62.4k yields $296.4m in revenue. If 4% of the orders are for the 40kWh car (190 units at $52.4k), there'd be at most $1.9m in lost revenue by "giving away" the slightly beefier battery.
It's plausible they'd still come out ahead given the cost savings of not setting up that production line even if they gave away all 190 software upgrades for free.
That's not irrational, assuming I'm interpreting the parent comment correctly: If 40 kWh car is really a "locked" 60 kWh that allows modders to unlock the remaining 20 kWh, then it's entirely reasonable to be pissed off if one bought the more expensive model. After all, one could saved a lot of money by buying the much cheaper 40 kWh model and unlocked it.
From the point of view of the 60KWh customers, they're still getting the same product for the same price that they agreed - so if the product was worth it to them at that price before, it should still be, regardless if some other customers are getting a greater surplus. Other people getting a good deal doesn't affect your utility.
This is so even if they were just shipping the 60KWh model as-is to those lucky 40KWh customers.
Yes, except the 40 kWh customers are essentially getting a rebate ("20 extra kWh" for free). The 60 kWh-ers may reasonably ask why they don't should not deserve a similar rebate (eg., free upgrade to 80 kWh), especially considering they paid more for the product than the 40 kWh-ers.
Note that I'm agreeing that it's nothing to get angry about (and we don't know whether this is something that can be "unlocked"), but I disagree that it's some kind quirky human, irrational response. On the contrary, it's completely rational; it's rational to recognize when something is distributed inequally in a way that favours some people out of sheer luck.
Uh... I don't really get this. Why not lower the price for everyone and get a better rep among customers?
I mean if Tesla wants to have lifelong customers that's where you start. But then again they seem to be going into the marketing of their tech so maybe not.
Because this is the price required to make the profit they wanted to make on the 60kWh option.
The fact that some cheap low performance version turned out to be infeasible because customers prefer expensive high performance version doesn't mean that you should (or could) reduce price of the expensive version.
Furthermore, some owners of crippled 60kWh units will probably end up paying for "upgrade" to 60kWh. In the end these units will sell for full 60kWh price even though the buyers initially wanted 45kWh version.
To be honest, I've always suspected that the 40 kWh was more about marketing than about actually releasing a commercially viable option - they wanted to hit the price point Elon Musk had announced on his roadmap several years earlier, but they couldn't produce a product the market actually wanted at such a low price. It might even be a slight loss leader.
4,750 units of the 60kWh car at $62.4k yields $296.4m in revenue. If 4% of the orders are for the 40kWh car (190 units at $52.4k), there'd be at most $1.9m in lost revenue by "giving away" the slightly beefier battery.
It's plausible they'd still come out ahead given the cost savings of not setting up that production line even if they gave away all 190 software upgrades for free.