> I'm sure i'm not the only one who feels like this is possibly the iphone moment of Solarcity/Tesla: an old-ish idea, made sexy and tasty to consumers, together with technology reaching a tipping point
Except one ingredient is missing: most people cannot afford one, even if they tried really hard.
He's pitching it as being basically break even, when electricity costs are factored in. My guess is an awful lot of people can afford this, especially for new construction. Certainly enough to keep up with ability to ramp up manufacturing and training of installers.
And then the economies of scale (and hopefully competition) will kick in and it should reach a point where nearly every new house, and nearly every replacement roof, will be solar by default. At least in climates friendly to solar.
IPhone got a lot of attention when it was released, but it was a while before they became common with more than just the early adopter crowd. This might take a while longer for various reasons, but still, this is a big deal.
This has an interesting twist. While it is subtle, people can tell you have it. People like to impress their neighbors. But this one isn't just "look how much money I have" but "look how I am using my money to be a responsible citizen of the planet." If you are going to try to enter the "keep up with the Jones's" race, this isn't a bad way to go about it.
He's pitching it as being basically break even, when electricity costs are factored in. My guess is an awful lot of people can afford this, especially for new construction.
I think this is key - often the pitch that "sure, it's expensive up front but will save you money in the long run" falls on deaf ears when people don't have the disposable income to immediately absorb that large up front cost, but when you're buying a house in most cases you're already taking out a large loan to finance a big up-front cost.
You're aware, of course, that SolarCity's entire business model is leasing solar panels back to consumers with no up-front costs, and a net savings, right?
Okay, so what they do is install the panels on your house for "free" (or some rough approximation thereof). They claim the Federal (and perhaps state?) tax credits on your behalf, and then "lease" the panels back to you. I believe you pay a set monthly fee and are also responsible for your electric bill, though of course the system is sized so as to minimize the bill that you pay the utility. They also maintain the system (cleaning, repairing broken parts, etc).
The advantage, of course, is the 0/low upfront costs.
Whether or not this model works for the roof tile system is another question entirely. Of course, the bill would be much larger, but the tax credit might be larger as well.
I'm not sure how they handle a circumstance in which your income causes your tax credit to be phased out. Likely there's fine print where you have to pony up extra money.
BTW this is now being shifted. They are allocating less and less to outright leasing. Musk said he expects in two years that all of their sales will be either loans by banks or outright full purchases and the leasing business going away.
The way I remember the first iPhone, it was hilariously expensive, yet lacked appeal to business users who at the time were the key demographic for such expensive widgets.
Relative to the benchmark of "People who can afford to buy a home in the US," perhaps a solar roof is not so unattainable. It just has to look great, convey social status, and be durable.
Most US home owners don't pay for their house (or car) outright. The putative purchase price of photovoltaic panels may not be prohibitive even for plebs.
Like any new technology early adopters pay way more, because economies of scale have yet to be achieved. Musk knows this, same with Tesla, he is marketing to a high-income target market first, because they are the ideal early adopters and it's easier to scale down rather than scale up features in a product.
And factoring in subsidies, electricity cost savings over a period 5-10 years, it might be more affordable than you think.
High end models few can afford at first, then slowly moving into the "regular guy" market once the R&D is done and mass production bottlenecks are solved.
"That kind of reminds me of Ballmer's "FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS?" moment."
$500 is not that much more expensive than a Nokia device at the time, and well within the surplus that a good chunk of people have to pay - especially when subsidized by carriers.
$30 000 - $100 000 - is another ballpark entirely in terms of cost. And it has to work out economically or it won't get anywhere, many ingredients are needed to make it work right.
Rolled up into a 30 year loan that turn into a few hundred a month. Much less if you can subtract your electricity and gas bills from that. I remember the biggest turn off for me on the original iPhone was the $70 a month data plan contract. But people bought it.
Except one ingredient is missing: most people cannot afford one, even if they tried really hard.