I don't think they make more from DC charging Teslas given you can't even connect a Tesla without buying the CCS adapter which only came out late last year in the US and is not selling 1:1 with cars. And it's $250. And it doesn't work with every car they made, only ones made very recently. "Check back in 2023 for retrofit information."

https://shop.tesla.com/product/ccs-combo-1-adapter?web=true

Also, I can see their banks of chargers around the corner from my house. No, it's not Teslas there. It's VWs and Polestars. Why? Because those companies give out a bunch of free charging at Electrify America chargers with their cars.

Which means those chargers which others could use to take long trips are instead clogged up with cars from people trying to save a dollar or two charging their car.

Giveaways of free charging at DCFCs should be banned.

> That’s the reason they won’t block Tesla vehicles.

I'm not talking about the companies making the decisions. I'm talking about the government making the decisions.

> Last year's reliability statistics where pretty bad for all but Tesla.

Okay? Certainly a lot of chargers are broken. It's disgusting. Not sure how that to what you said about testing with different cars.

Do note that report includes AC charging, not just DC. And AC charging is often even less reliable than DC simply because there are a lot of AC chargers that are unmaintained. They were put in on a tax credit and even the nominal operator doesn't care if they continue to work.

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/j-d-power-electric-car-charging-getting-worse/

Also note some of the failures are due to billing issues. Something which hopefully will get better as plug-n-charge rolls out. Then again, maybe that's being too hopeful.

Additionally the figures will get better as there are a larger number of people familiar with how to charge an EV. You have a lot of people who are trying it for their first time and they don't know the ins and outs. You can say they shouldn't have to, but in practice they do. And they will over time.

> I have never had a bad experience with the charging port on my Bolt EUV. Maybe the Bolts had an issue.

You shouldn't with that car. That's the 2nd gen. Neither the EUV or 2nd gen EV should have that particular issue.

I've had the problem with my 1st gen Bolt. Have to learn to hold the handle up. It's a drag. But the car was made when a fast CCS charger was 50-60kW and now it's 350kW. The cables got bigger, the handles got bigger. Maybe they should have seen it coming, but they didn't.

> All of the announcements came out yesterday about the network opening officially. The Tesla website has been updated to include CCS compatible stations

I don't care what Tesla puts on their website. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

Right now Tesla is trying to brag about 12.5% by end of 2024.

Screw 'em. Take money away and lock them out of all CCS chargers. They're just buying time to extend their vendor lock in.

> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/elon-musk-finally-opens-up-tesla-charging-network/ar-AA17xd5k

That link adds nothing at all to what you already said.

> Electrify America has worked with more multiple vendors and multiple models. Read the issue from the own words.

The statement given is about the Spark EV. Literally the 2nd ever type 1 CCS car and one that came out in 2013. I would not suggest that the levels of variance from the standard would be the same for cars released in 2022 as in 2013. Especially given CCS 2.0 didn't even come out until 2018.

> I am thinking Tesla will work with everyone due to having to validate fewer combinations of systems.

I don't understand what that means. And BTW, Tesla has at least 4 variants of their chargers. And that's before any one they would make with Type 1 (US) CCS.

And I certainly see less reason for Tesla to do a good job working with other cars when they are only doing it to get a handout. They are in it for the handout, not the money made from charging other cars. I expect malicious compliance. It's what they are doing with their driver assist ("autopilot") and advanced driver assist rollout ("FSD"). It's what they did with the requirement for their cars to make noise at low speeds. It's what Musk plans for wing mirrors on the new Roadster (he said so publicly). It's what I expect from them here too. They're that kind of company.

> There is very little collaboration between those networks

I agree. Their collaboration is only of the form of accidentally working toward a more comprehensive infrastructure.

So what?

> As for being able to charge any car. Those networks do a poor job validating their chargers with every car on the road. That comes down to which vendor they buy their chargers from and whom support them better.

You're going to suggest to me that your chances of the chargers working with your car are slim even though CCS is standardized?

If your Bolt didn't have a weak charge port on it it would work with pretty much every charger (that isn't broken which sadly is a lot of them). Instead you likely have to hold the handle up to get charging started on the faster chargers simply because their charge handle is too heavy for the car.

> When Tesla opens their network some of the other networks are going to find it very hard to compete, with Tesla taking there business.

Don't bother me none. Although I don't really expect Tesla to open their network. Musk said he'd do it last year. He's just buying time while he continues his vendor lock-in.

However you do kind of seem to simultaneously assuming that a charger that isn't tested with a given model car isn't going to work. And then assuming that Tesla's chargers are going to work with non-Teslas. Why would you assume that? By your thinking even if they put a CCS handle on them they are unlikely to work with your car.

The one which is made up of all the different companies building out CCS chargers.

ChargePoint, Shell Recharge, SemaConnect, EVgo, ElectrifyAmerica, Blink, and a whole lot more.

Anyone with a CCS car can use any of those. Regardless of the make of their car.

It forms an infrastructure enabling long trips in EVs for anyone who has an EV.

Unlike Tesla's network which only serves them.

> Because there WASN'T a fast charging DC infrastructure or standard when they started building their network.

That was then. This is now.

And for the record, I DC fast charged my Nissan LEAF before Tesla even built a single Supercharger. No, not using CCS, but still.

So suggesting Tesla had to decide to go it alone doesn't work. They chose to.

> At this point you'd be asking them to retrofit thousands of stations at their cost because the standard is now set

If they want to ask for financial aid to adapt chargers I'm fine with that. If instead of retrofitting their chargers they simply are prevented from building any new ones that only work with Teslas I'm fine with that.

For a person who is on my side you sure are making up a whole lot of roadblocks to my side. Why?

Yes, I'm saying Tesla should have to decide:

Is CCS infrastructure an asset?

If yes. Then it's time for them to join in it.

If no, then ban Teslas from using CCS infrastructure. Ban them from other (DC) chargers other than their own monopolistic network.

If their idea is "it's useful so we want our cars to use it but we're not going to help anyone else" then they can go hang.

I never said anything about forcing Tesla to use CCS for their own cars.

First of all, I don't care if they built it first. EV infrastructure is too important to let one company monopolize it.

Second, if they want to go it alone then let them do it alone. Ban Teslas from the CCS network that everyone else is collaborating on.

But Tesla doesn't appear to be happy with that. They created an adapter so that their cars can use CCS chargers, released it last year.

Tesla sees the value in their customers being able to use a large charging infrastructure that includes CCS chargers. If they want that, then they should have to join it and make their chargers part of it. Get a little, give a little.

Or just go it completely alone. Ban them from CCS chargers. And no tax breaks for them installing chargers, since they are not adding to public infrastructure. And no relief from electricity demand charges as public chargers get, as they are not public infrastructure.

California already implemented some of this, the Feds other parts. Let's just wrap it all up together and let Tesla decide if going it alone really is better than being part of the shared build out.

Hilarious how you say the US is terrible at doing public infrastructure. Might that be because people such as yourself reject proposed plans like mine which would create a better public infrastructure?

> You mean why should only Teslas be allowed to use the charging network that Tesla solely funded and built themselves?

Yes. That's what I mean. Why should Tesla be allowed to build an exclusionary network? They aren't allowed to in Europe. The US should show the same vision.

> I'm glad they're opening the supercharger network up but you're comparing a privately owned and funded charging network to public ones.

All the networks are privately owned. There as far as I know no publicly-owned DCFC charging networks.

Tesla's stations are not privately funded, they charge people to charge their cars. It used to be free to Tesla owners (part of the purchase price) but not for a long time now.

Yes, I'm asking why one company should be allowed to build out an EV charging system that creates vendor lock in for them when a wider EV infrastructure is a benefit to all. Again, the EU prohibited it. Seems like a great model to follow.

If a company like say Walmart wants to put in chargers at their distribution centers and say that they are private to them, only for charging their trucks they own, then that's one thing. But if a company wants to build out a network that is usable by members of the public and it charges them to do so then they shouldn't be allowed to exclude some members of the public just because of what car they own.

> Brother can charge his 3 where ever he wants thanks to adapters

Yeah, that's real useful isn't it? Why should that be restricted to Teslas?

7500 ain't shit. Open them all or ban Teslas from using CCS chargers (as they currently do).

BTW, as is standard Musk practice he promised they would open up chargers in the US to other makes by the end of last year. But Tesla didn't do it.

Lies about "by the end of this year" are practically a Tesla trademark.

Tesla is going to charge them money to charge, just like they do with Teslas.

The fees cover the costs of people wearing down the chargers (and then some).

> Is there any reason to think that Tesla owners, may not like this idea?

Who cares about them?

Tesla started selling adapters so Teslas can use non-Tesla chargers late last year. No one asked the non-Tesla drivers if they wanted Tesla drivers at their chargers.

EV infrastructure is too important to allow any company or group to monopolize it.

Pike was in it too.

I guess. But the article veers from that too. It counts Capital One and Carvana as tech. And I only got down to the Cs to see those!

Honestly it looks like the article is just bundling up nearly any company that uses computers in their business and laid off as "tech" (or Silicon Valley in that paragraph).

Carvana puts thousands of car salesmen on the street because the leadership can't figure out how to properly track car titles and it's part of a "tech layoff trend to bring workers to heel".

BTW, a friend's actual Silicon Valley, actual tech (and I don't mean selling mattresses over the internet) company laid off today. About 3.5% of headcount. So there is something there. I just think it's being massively misrepresented here.

That tracker lists Carvana and Capital One as tech companies.

We can see that if you merely class every company doing anything as a tech company then "tech" is laying off a lot.

The very idea that Microsoft, Amazon and Carvana are colluding to bring anyone to heel is ridiculous.

> In Silicon Valley, the new year began as the last one ended — with tens of thousands of tech workers losing their jobs. Just a few days into 2023, Amazon Chief Executive Andrew Jassy announced that there would be 18,000 layoffs across the company. Within weeks, Microsoft revealed it was slashing its head count by 10,000 and Google said that it was terminating 12,000 employees. IBM looks to be next, with nearly 4,000 workers on the chopping block.

3 of those 4 companies are not Silicon Valley companies.

Yeah, just put her in jail. She was convicted.

She can serve time while appealing.

2/3rds of this list are shitcoin grifters.

It's one thing to want privacy. It's another to run a service that offers it for a reasonable price (Proton). It's another to just try to create a get rich quick scheme with a pretense of standing for privacy.

There is no reason for (for example) filecoin to have a shitcoin in their business model except to allow people to speculate on it and manipulate it.

Their trans are far less likely to share tracks with freight.

> You still type a PIN in for a CAC / PIV. The readers used to come standard on many laptops (the card was inserted and stuck out a bit over a centimeter, barely noticeable) Now they’re a $10-20 accessory, not terribly pricy but annoying if you move a lot with your laptop.

The PIN is not a shared secret. You don't type anything in that goes to the service on the other end. The PIN (if used, and it often is) just enables the card. The card does the entire transaction with the other end using a key in the card. A key that is never sent out of the card, not even during account setup.

> As far as token fobs with OTP, it depends. The RSA hack affected all customers and allowed the hackers to generate the OTPs.

Those aren't TOTP. I didn't know those RSA fobs (mine was actually credit card shaped) were even used anymore. They basically work like a rolling code garage door. Either way there is a shared secret, when the fob was created a key was either sent into it or out of it. The other end of the connection uses that shared secret to generate the same sequence as the card is generating.

With a CAV/PIV the private key needed to authenticate is neither sent into nor out of the card ever. It's not stealable with a hack by the manufacturer or anyone else. No one else at all has the key. In theory it can be extracted from the card. They try to make it difficult though. You operate under the theory that the key didn't exist before you generated it. And after that you've had sufficient custody of the card that no evil maid had time to get it out.

You don't type anything in.

There's no shared secret like TOTP has. With TOTP the shared secret is not conveyed with each auth, that is a step up. But with systems that use PKI there is no shared secret ever conveyed. So there is no information the online service holds that could be leaked (or stolen/sold) which could be used to authenticate as you.

Honestly, the your shared TOTP secret is likely unique per service so someone stealing it from the company could probably only use it on that service anyway.

But also TOTP is nearly never used as primary authentication. It's just a backup to prevent replay attacks (key loggers).

These PKI card systems have been around a long time. They are one of the earliest "smart card" systems, from the 1990s. They could be made cheaply, but the biggest issue is you always need to have a reader with you to employ them. With TOTP you can just type in the number on the screen on a normal keyboard (or screen keyboard). Getting those readers around ads a lot of cost.

Which is why the modern versions of those cards generally just use USB. That's near ubiquitous now. Soon even all phones will have a USB-C port.

It's just one car. It has this effect where people who buy an EV are disproportionately likely to buy this one car.

Non-EV crossovers as a whole massively outsell it. Also VW sells more EVs than Tesla does in Europe also, it just is spread across multiple models.

But if you are just looking at which car sold the most it's that one.

It won't last. All the European car companies are targeting Tesla and making gains. Another car (likely from a European make) will take over to become the most sold car in Europe.

It says two sureties. Two people split the costs.

That's fantastic. Unfortunately on a Mac encoding using Apple's accelerated encoders is like 20x faster than using CPU. And Apple's encoders do not do AV1. Maybe that'll change.

It is crazy to me SF is considered not just a part of Silicon Valley but its core by a lot of people.

It was bad enough during the dotcom boom when all those companies only made software. Silicon Valley got back to the silicon (with the rise of handheld devices like the iPod and phones) and then the web server jockeys moved on to SF.

Don't get me wrong, they do real work. Setting up an ecommerce server is non-trivial. But it's also at least as close to K-Mart as it is to Microsoft.

And then came the mattress, razor, underwear companies. They just sell crap over the internet and that's a tech play? Wait? Now offering payment plans to buy stuff is tech too? Nonsense.