Tesla market share in US drops to lowest since 2017

Market share, revenue, and growth

• Many distinguish sharply between falling EV market share and fundamentals like revenue and profit.
• Some argue declining share is inevitable as the EV market broadens; others counter that Tesla’s entire growth narrative depended on dominating EVs, so erosion of share plus flat revenue is serious.
• Several point out revenue has effectively stagnated for ~3 years, with 2024–2025 looking like a plateau or decline once inflation is considered. Two consecutive years of falling unit sales are framed as a major red flag for a supposed growth company.

Valuation, stock, and “meme” dynamics

• Widespread sentiment that Tesla’s valuation (very high P/E) is decoupled from its current auto business and driven by speculative hopes in AI, robots, and robotaxis.
• Multiple commenters describe Tesla as a meme stock, “product is the stock,” and note that shorting it has burned even skilled short sellers.
• The proposed trillion‑dollar pay package is seen by many as a stock‑pumping stunt or a desperate attempt to keep Musk focused on Tesla; others note that misrepresenting such a package would be securities fraud.

Competition, lineup, and product strategy

• Consensus that competitors have “caught up or passed” Tesla on many EV metrics (range, charging speed, comfort, features), especially from Hyundai/Kia, Toyota, Rivian, Lucid, Chinese makers (where present).
• Tesla’s lineup is widely called thin and stale: essentially a midsize sedan, a smallish SUV, and a niche truck. Lack of a cheap “Model 2” and absence of a compact/B‑segment car are seen as big strategic misses.
• Cybertruck is often labeled a design and QC failure and a poor allocation of resources, especially as it’s hard to sell outside North America.

Product quality, usability, and service

• Many anecdotes of poor build quality, rattles, water‑ingress concerns, difficult repairs, and high insurance/repair costs; others report recent service as fast and smooth.
• Strong criticism of Tesla’s removal of physical controls (stalks, gear selector, horn/button placement), seen as dangerous “techno‑poverty” favoring aesthetics and cost over ergonomics.
• At the same time, Tesla’s software, charging integration, and infotainment are often praised as still industry‑leading.

Charging network and EV market structure

• Some insist the Supercharger network remains a key moat; others argue that NACS adoption and adapters mean the advantage is rapidly eroding.
• Several note that many legacy EV competitors are selling at large losses and reliant on subsidies; they expect some brands or models to be pulled back, which could benefit Tesla later.
• The July sales bump is attributed largely to expiring tax credits pulling demand forward; Tesla underperforming the overall EV growth in that month is viewed by some as a bad sign.

Musk, politics, and brand damage

• A very large contingent believes Musk’s high‑profile far‑right politics, online behavior, and conflicts (e.g., unions, governments) have severely harmed Tesla’s brand, especially among the tech‑liberal early‑adopter base.
• Examples include owners adding “bought before Elon went crazy” stickers and people refusing to consider a Tesla despite liking the product. Others argue this is overemphasized or confined to certain demographics.

Robotics, FSD, and future bets

• Longstanding skepticism about FSD timelines (“next year since 2018”) and Tesla’s robotaxi narrative; some say Tesla is now pivoting hype from autonomy to humanoid robots.
• Debate over how real Optimus is versus remote‑controlled demos; some think Tesla is near the front of humanoid robotics, others think it’s mostly a marketing show and that industrial/non‑humanoid robots are more practical.
• Several compare the robotics bet to Meta’s metaverse: huge, early, and possibly badly timed, but central to justifying the current valuation.