Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Tesla To Produce 'a Few Million' Electric Cars a Year By 2025 181

HughPickens.com writes: Reuters reports that Elon Musk, speaking at an industry conference in Detroit, said Tesla may not be profitable until 2020 but that Tesla plans to boost production of electric cars to "at least a few million a year" by 2025. Musk told attendees at the Automotive News World Congress that "we could make money now if we weren't investing" in new technology and vehicles such as the Model 3 and expanded retail networks.

Musk does not see the Chevrolet Bolt as a potential competitor to the Model 3. "It's not going to affect us if someone builds a few hundred thousand vehicles," said Musk. "I'd be pleased to see other manufacturers make electric cars." On another topic, Musk said he was open to partnerships with retailers to sell Tesla vehicles, but not until after the company no longer has production bottlenecks. "Before considering taking on franchised dealers, we also have to establish (more of) our own stores," said Musk adding that "we will consider" franchising "if we find the right partner." Musk did not elaborate, but said Tesla "is not actively seeking any partnerships" with other manufacturers "because our focus is so heavily on improving our production" in Fremont. Last year, Tesla delivered about 33,000 Model S sedans and said the current wait for delivery is one to four months. Tesla has already presold every Model S that it plans to build in 2015. "If you ordered a car today, you wouldn't get it until 2016."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla To Produce 'a Few Million' Electric Cars a Year By 2025

Comments Filter:
  • If the current wait is one to four months... considering it's January 2015 right now... and if I ordered one now I wouldn't get it until 2016...

    Time travel?

    • Re:math (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @01:20PM (#48812707)

      It's a typo. The wait for a model S is 1-4 months. The model X is sold out for 2015.

    • Re:math (Score:4, Informative)

      by astrokid ( 779104 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @01:20PM (#48812717)
      It should read that the Model X (SUV.. not yet available) presales have been exceeded for 2015 and future purchases wont be fulfilled until 2016. The Model S (Sedan) is the model with the 1-4 month wait time.
    • Typo... the link says it's the Model X SUV that's presold-out for 2015. So you only have to wait months for an S Sedan.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      If these cars are so wildly popular that they're selling out and there is a long waiting list, perhaps we should end the $10,000 subsidy which was intended to encourage purchase of these vehicles.

      Seems they would sell fine without the subsidy.

      • Re:math (Score:4, Informative)

        by stronghawk ( 1595625 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @02:11PM (#48813185)
        It's a $7500 tax credit. Same for all electrics, including the Leaf. It's only good for the first 200,000 cars sold (unless it gets renewed).
        • by Gryle ( 933382 )
          The GP suffers from the misconception that not taxing people is the same as giving them money.
    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      FTS:

      Last year, Tesla delivered about 33,000 Model S sedans and said the current wait for delivery is one to four months. Tesla has already presold every Model S that it plans to build in 2015. "If you ordered a car today, you wouldn't get it until 2016."

      There's no contradiction at all... last year, they said that the wait was one to four months. At the time that they said this, that is actually what it was at the time, hence their use of the word "currently". Now the waitlist is more like a year.

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @01:18PM (#48812679) Journal
    No, no, no. Please don't consider franchising or dealing with the devil called auto dealers. For country that loves the automobile, where automobile is the second most expensive thing one buys in a life time, given the love and joy and pleasure the car brings to so many Americans, it is shameful we dread the auto buying experience. We always leave feeling we have been over charged a thousand or two. The auto dealers are the trolls living under the bridge, demanding their pound of flesh for us to get our beloved automobiles.

    We were hoping we found a giant killer, a veritable David against Goliath, a David on our side. Now you eh, tu! Elon? Don't. Break their back. Bring national direct auto buying directly from the manufacturer to the nation that deserves it. It is long past time, we let the free markets to be free.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Can Tesla do something like pick a dealership and add conditions like, "must sell only tesla or only electric cars", "Tesla will retain the right to sell directly too" etc? Why are the standard auto makers not able to sell directly? Is it because A: the law stops them or B: They had signed exclusive agreements already. If Tesla starts with a clean slate, can it have dealerships and sell directly too? Or at least have some more balanced rights and decent negotiating position compared to the gas giants who ar
      • by RalphSlate ( 128202 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @01:46PM (#48812949) Homepage

        Your vision may be clouded by Elon Musk's cool name and your belief that he is good, not evil. Picture Jack Welch as the head of Tesla instead. Now picture that you're considering buying a Tesla dealership. You pay your franchise fee (maybe a few million), you sign your agreement (which states that Tesla retains the rights to sell directly), you build your building, and you start selling your cars. Turns out that you are pretty good at your job, and your dealership becomes a top-selling Tesla dealership.

        Jack Welch checks his monthly reports and says "hmm, look at the Anytown USA territory. Everyone down there wants one of our cars. Let's open a company storefront down there - we can sell for less than our franchise and make more money". Sorry, you're out of business, and probably bankrupt too, because you took the risk for Tesla, and they cashed in.

        My father used to own a Texaco gas station. He often competed with stations that were owned by Texaco itself. There were times when those company-owned stations would sell gas for cheaper than they would sell it to him wholesale. Corporate mentality doesn't care about anything but profit.

        • Corporate mentality doesn't care about anything but profit.

          Nor do car dealerships or gas station owners. The only time we ordinary consumers benefit is when giants compete in a free level field. Right now it is tilted far too much towards the NADA.

          • Corporate mentality doesn't care about anything but profit.

            Nor do car dealerships or gas station owners. The only time we ordinary consumers benefit is when giants compete in a free level field. Right now it is tilted far too much towards the NADA.

            Hopefully you don't believe this. The only time ordinary consumers benefit is when there are many small sellers, so supply and demand can actually function. When the field is dominated by a few giants, only the giants (and their shareholders) benefit. A free market depends on nobody, buyer or seller, being able to monopolize the market for their own advantage.

            • by lgw ( 121541 )

              It doesn't take many sellers, is the thing. 3 is often enough if they're not illegally colluding.

              The main protection, though, is lack of barrier to entry. If the few big players are bad, but new players can just undercut them without being regulated out of existence by the big guys' pet senators, then that's just as good. That's the battle right now with Tesla - they're quite the disruptive new player, but they're being fought in the "you must have dealerships" regulatory war, instead of in the market.

        • by imgod2u ( 812837 )

          In such a situation, the franchise owner should've had enough foresight (especially given the vast amount of previous history) to add to the franchise agreement a non-compete clause. Free market and all.

          Sometimes one side of said contract has too much power and we need the government to step in and make a law. The problem with that approach is that those laws often outlive their intent. The franchise laws to protect auto dealers were enacted in a day where the Big Three auto makers were the only business in

        • by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @03:21PM (#48813765) Journal

          My father used to own a Texaco gas station. He often competed with stations that were owned by Texaco itself. There were times when those company-owned stations would sell gas for cheaper than they would sell it to him wholesale. Corporate mentality doesn't care about anything but profit.

          Of course through the effects of corporate self-interest, consumers got cheaper gas than they could from your father's rip-off gas station...

          • That's one way to look at it - though characterizing it as "rip-off" because he wasn't charitable enough to subsidize people's gas seems a little antagonistic. Perhaps you didn't read where I wrote that Texaco charged him more for gas (i.e. the wholesale level) than it charged its retail customers. He took the risk by pioneering the market, they later came in and undercut him once it was established. That is the corporate way.

          • Of course through the effects of corporate self-interest, consumers got cheaper gas than they could from your father's rip-off gas station...

            Only until his father's gas station is out of business. Then Standard Oil ......ack....I mean Texaco jacks the prices up and nobody gets cheap gas.
        • by yuriyg ( 926419 )

          "...Let's open a company storefront down there - we can sell for less than our franchise and make more money".

          There were times when those company-owned stations would sell gas for cheaper than they would sell it to him wholesale

          This is actually really good for the consumer, and thus for the economy.

      • Must sell only Tesla/EVs: Probably could. However, the dealer could also simply set up a second LLC right next door and open another. IE: Blarmy's Tesla dealership is right next to Blarmy's Honda dealership.
        Retain the right to sell directly: Very unlikely - most state laws, even those that don't require an 'independent' dealer, forbid the manufacturer from directly competing with the dealerships for customers.
        Standard automakers: See the state non-compete laws, laws requiring dealers(Texas), and yes,

      • by david_bonn ( 259998 ) <davidbonnNO@SPAMmac.com> on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @02:13PM (#48813207) Homepage Journal

        Can Tesla do something like pick a dealership and add conditions like, "must sell only tesla or only electric cars", "Tesla will retain the right to sell directly too" etc? Why are the standard auto makers not able to sell directly? Is it because A: the law stops them or B: They had signed exclusive agreements already. If Tesla starts with a clean slate, can it have dealerships and sell directly too? Or at least have some more balanced rights and decent negotiating position compared to the gas giants who are wimps against NADA.

        Yes, Tesla could do all of that. Most dealers wouldn't sign such an agreement. For that matter, most dealers wouldn't want to sell an electric car.

        Seriously, most existing car dealers don't know how to sell an electric car and make money at it. Since, for the most part, a Tesla requires far less maintenance than a modern internal combustion car, and since, for the most part, the biggest profit center in most car dealerships is the service center I can't see how the existing dealer networks can adapt to selling a Tesla or any other electric car.

        Right now there is a dizzying patchwork of laws requiring automobiles be sold through dealers and not direct from the manufacturer. Historically, a lot of this was to protect local small businessmen (car dealers, who even today are quite well represented in local government). The other argument was that with a local dealer the purchaser of a car could also be sure his car could be serviced locally as well -- and since an electric car requires so much less service, that logic is kind of questionable.

        Oh, and car dealerships (or any franchisee) can protect themselves from being undercut by the automaker by insisting on the same terms as any other dealer in their territory. There is also this thing called the Sherman Anti-Trust act that also prohibits undercutting your own dealers.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Toshito ( 452851 )

          Since, for the most part, a Tesla requires far less maintenance than a modern internal combustion car

          I don't know where that meme comes from, but on my last 2 cars and my current one (all bought brand new), I've never had a repair done that was related to the engine or transmission.

          All problems where electrical (radio, door locks, etc..), brakes (the parking brake was frozen in place) or suspension (links, ball joint).

          So appart from the 2 or 3 times a year oil change that's so cheap they can't do more than 2 or 3$ profit on, I don't see where a Tesla could bring in less work for the dealer since it has the

          • Electric motors are demonstrably more reliable than internal combustion engines. That is where the meme comes from.

            Cars have lots of electrical problems because most automakers don't know how to build good electrical machines. Look at the hardware failure rate in your tablets, phones, furnaces, air conditioners, dishwashers, light switches, TV, VCR, and the rate of electrical failures in automobiles. Auto company engineering top honchos are all mechanical engineers who suck in electrical machines.

            Look

            • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
              A lot of the electrical problems are traced to bad engineering. Vibrations are hard on connectors, and rather than building one that worked, they took "standard" ones that didn't work that well, and used those. When they start failing, you get poor power (gaps/sparks, voltage drop, and such) that fry electronics.

              They know the problems, and choose to not fix them because the fix is expensive.
          • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            I had 3 transmission failures in an '87 GM before I sold it (family hand-down). My mother had an engine replacement, partially covered by warranty out of warranty by Audi, a 2000 model, work done in '07. '81 Accord lasted about 10 years, died with a complete engine failure, and had a bad transmission for the last 5 years or so of its life.

            I've seen many cars have major powertrain failures.

            And with regenerative brakes, you need to do the brakes less often.
          • And I'll counter with my own anecdotal data point:
            My Juke was recalled because some timing chains were failing, causing the engine to eat itself.

            ICE cars need a lot of maintenance to stay roadworthy. We are simply used to it and don't think about it much.

        • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

          This makes no sense. Car dealers are no different from any other retailer. Just because they make money off of service today does not mean that is the only way to make money. They can make money:

          Selling extended warranties
          Selling dealer options (floor mats, etc)
          Financing
          Raising the markup on the product

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

          for the most part, the biggest profit center in most car dealerships is the service center

          I thought it was the used lot. New cars make them $200 to $5000 (depending on the area and the specific car), but a used car makes $2000 to $10000. Service is ok, but they don't make a mint on it. Certainly not in the '70s and '80s (when independent repair shops were common and able to fix anything in a car). Not sure if that's turning around with in-car DRM on parts.

    • Part of the problem, is the auto dealers is one of the few middle-class wage jobs out there, that people with limited education can get in and earn a good life style.

      However I do not like the idea that companies are forced to have dealers. With some competition will force dealers to value add in their service not just resell cars.

      • by Hadlock ( 143607 )

        Yeah retail salespersons are kind of dinosaurs at this point. You can't technically buy a car on Amazon but you can buy a road legal (in some states) scooter there. Inertia is the only reason you can't order a new Toyota Camry or Prius on Amazon and have it shipped to your house. You can do it with used cars on Ebay at least.
         
        I'm not sure jobs or tax revenue are a good reason to impede forward progress though.

        • by imgod2u ( 812837 )

          Maybe not but every politician represents the needs of his electorate and that electorate certainly want to keep their jobs.

          I'm not saying it's a good reason but often times, technological changes can blind-side a good portion of the population and we have to consider that. Perhaps not stop progress but definitely slow down adoption to give the population time to find new jobs.

        • On the other hand there are plenty of sites now where you can contact a previous owner directly, and if you really wanted make arrangements for someone to deliver the vehicle to you. It's really just an evolution of checking the listings in the paper and calling the person or driving to their location yourself. The only difference is that there's no centralized entity that's in anyway responsible for the sale itself, it's just connecting buyers and sellers.
        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

          I thought you could buy a car on Amazon, though only 3 were sold that way.
  • Yeah, I can see why Musk would like to see a few more EVs out there. Heck, I can see him wanting them to use his charging technology.

    More manufacturers making and selling electric cars helps justify the creation of more infrastructure, which increases the value of the cars he sells without costing Tesla money.

    If the extra cars means that businesses, restaurants, and stores 'all' install a charging point, that's a good value boost.

    Also, 'current wait' is 4 months, yet if you ordered one today you wouldn't g

    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @02:23PM (#48813289)

      Also, 'current wait' is 4 months, yet if you ordered one today you wouldn't get it to 2016? That's a 12 month wait.

      That has to do with the flux capacitors. If you order one today, they'll get around to making yours in 2016. Then they set the date back to when you ordered it and drive it 88MPH up the railroad tracks. Then it just has to wait 4 months for them to finish up the paperwork, and its yours.

  • by Koreantoast ( 527520 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @01:46PM (#48812951)
    I have tremendous admiration for Elon Musk and Tesla, but ramping up production to that of a top five or even top ten automobile manufacturer is almost unrealistically ambitious. Building up the supply chain for the materials, hiring and training workers, setting up factories, etc... these are things that take years to do even under ideal circumstances. The fact that they're having difficultly with numbers and quality at such a small batch just makes it more complex.

    I've also talked with a few industrial engineers that specialize in this type of manufacturing, and at least based on the videos released, the way his assembly lines are setup right now are not going to scale up well. For him to meet his production goals, he's going to have to completely redo the way he does fabrication and final assembly. Should also be pointed out too that the NUMMI plant they're operating out of produced at its peak 6,000 vehicles a week: a healthy number, but an order of magnitude lower than his goals. He will have to expand, probably build more factories, and that will take time. Again, these are just the issues of the factory, it doesn't even go into the other issues.
    • Not to mention that by the time the market supports one manufacture of 1 million units/year, there will be lots more competition at every level. Someone will start Faraday Motors and take some share as well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You proceed from a false assumption.

      The Tesla factory fronts the 880 Freeway in Fremont on the east side of the San Francisco Bay. Instead of building a brand-new factory, Tesla purchased the old Nummi factory that had been producing GM and Toyota vehicles since 1984 before closing in 2010. Tesla paid only $42 million for the plant, which sits on 380 acres and was originally constructed in 1962.

      The Nummi factory is already big enough to build half a million vehicles a year. They've been expanding lines for

      • You said it yourself, the NUMMI factory can produce half a million vehicles a year. That's a large number, but that's still only a fraction of several million vehicles per year in Tesla's stated ambition. Last I checked, Fremont doesn't have room to scale that facility up five or ten times. He's going to have to go out and start setting up new factories which is a big task. And again, this is only talking about fabrication and final assembly, he's also going to have to scale up his supply chain, and tha
        • by imgod2u ( 812837 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @03:10PM (#48813667) Homepage

          The stated ambition was "about a million cars" The article is incorrect in its quote. The liveblog (and video) are much more accurate.

          One thing unique about Tesla's manufacturing is that the supply chain is materials. Most everything else is produced by Tesla themselves at the Fremont factory. Many questioned why this decision was made but there are many long-term benefits. When your supply chain is all raw materials, availability becomes much more predictable and your ability to influence the supply by pumping some money into a mine is far easier than say, getting a different company to shape up and manufacture more parts.

          The only part of a Tesla that isn't produced at Fremont are the batteries and that's why the Gigafactory is coming online.

          • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            So he's following the old American model where the raw materials went in one end, and the cars came out the other? I would have thought that the electronics and such would come in pre-made, and assembled, rather than made on site. Assembly of parts (batteries, electronics) would be easier than manufacture. The panels and such should be easy enough to make on-site.
    • Tesla admits they're using only 20% of the former NUMMI plant space to build the Model S/X.. which is supposed to be low volume/high price flagship vehicle. They're still designing the Model 3's manufacturing method (alongside the vehicle itself)..

    • Your post is suggesting that Musk may be naive enough to not anticipate all the difficult steps necessary for ramping up production, but somehow I have more faith in him as a businessman. Did you see how he handled the negotiations about the battery factory? Like a bawss.

      Higher end Teslas were always meant to be a learning experience for the company. They're high-end cars, so they're made in a boutique setting like high end cars tend to be. There is a sense in starting upmarket and working your way down

  • I love the idea of electric cars, and Tesla is on my "lottery win" shopping list. With that said, if you apply hard numbers these cars do not make any sense at the current gas prices. Tesla's battery mega factory may change these numbers, but as of right now electric car premium substantially overshadows any and all gas savings. This is even before we start talking about hidden costs of scaling electric car ownership up.

    As to mass-producing these cars, I have doubts that infrastructure could handle mass-ad
    • by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      I love the idea of electric cars, and Tesla is on my "lottery win" shopping list. With that said, if you apply hard numbers these cars do not make any sense at the current gas prices.

      The truth is that none of the cars in the luxury category make any economic sense -- why spend $60,000+ on a luxury car when a $12,000 Honda Fit would get you to your destinations just as effectively?

      So why do expensive cars sell? Because they're cool. And cool is something that Tesla's cars have, in spades.

      Imagine what will happen to electricity costs during peak usage when everyone runs AC AND charges electric cars at the same time!

      Okay, I'm imagining a lot of people switching to charging their cars at night, and running the AC during the day.

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        And don't forget, the AC peak is correlated with the solar output peak. So more solar would help ease the peaks (At least in he US south, southwest, and west).
    • a) No argument here. Gigafactory should help
      b) Cost of expanding charging station network - They're doing it now. Heck, every time somebody buys an EV they typically increase the network size by the charging station in their garage.
      c) Built into the cost of building the charging stations
      d) increased load during peak times - It's more likely to increase baseload, actually. They're highly computerized big drawers. It's relative child's play to mess with the charging timing and draw to ensure that you're

    • by beanpoppa ( 1305757 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @03:19PM (#48813745)
      Get out of the gasoline mindset. I commute to work 5 days a week, 30 miles each way. I park my car in my garage every night. I fill up my tank about once every 8 days. It takes about 5-7 minutes each time.

      With an electric car with a 200 mile range, I would still drive my car 60 miles a day, but I would no longer be stopping at a gas station every eight days. I would be plugging in every night. The only time I would ever need a charging station is when I need to drive more than 100 miles away from my house. I do this MAYBE once a month. So, already my demand at a 'fueling' station is 1/4 of what it was.

      Add to this the difference in costs build a fueling station. A public level 2 charging station can be installed for as little as $5000. Level 3 would currently cost about $50,000. A charging station can be anywhere, and can be built in days. Charging station supply will be able to increase very easily as demand does. You can even put one in a school parking lot. The electrical infrastructure to deliver 'fuel' to just about any corner of the continent is already in place. Basically, you charge your car wherever you park it. A gas station is a destination.
      • by rsborg ( 111459 )

        The electrical infrastructure to deliver 'fuel' to just about any corner of the continent is already in place. Basically, you charge your car wherever you park it. A gas station is a destination

        Not only that, but a gas station is future super-fund site waiting to happen. Why do you think gas companies don't own stations anymore? The EPA would put them out of business actually cleaning up their messes.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      I'm curious if the neighborhood electric grid is scaled to support swapping out half or more of the 70-odd cars on the block for electric cars. Assuming a generic assortment of random cars charging at an average rate of 5kW that's a new load of 160kW.

      It's probably not an issue in a cold climate in the winter (since it would balance out the power we'd normally use for air conditioning) but what about the summer?

      And then I think, well, scale that up to the entire city and suddenly it seems like a whole power

      • Well the cars would likely be charging during the evening and through out the night, when peak power demand has slacked off. So it's possible the infrastructure might need a little beefing up, it's also possible it'd be just fine. Another possibilities is the cars could be programmed to hold off charging until later in the evening when demand really slacks off, and in some locality power gets cheaper. Also given that the car will most of the time only need to recover 40 miles or less of charge it won't need

        • by swb ( 14022 )

          Everyone always says the cars will charge late at night when demand is low, but is that a function of the charger gizmo on my garage wall or the car itself? I see people coming home from work and just plugging in the car to the wall as a matter of habit unless they have immediate plans to go someplace that evening because it will be a bitch to wake up and go to work and find that you didn't plug in and your battery doesn't have enough power to get you to work.

          So in theory you could have a huge demand from

          • I am by no means an authority but my impression was that the computer in the car that manages the battery pack would control the charging schedule. Maybe it'll actually be an option that you can configure depending on your needs.

            • I know that Tesla's interface allows you to start and stop charging at specific times, and I assume the others do, as well. The power companies can use EV time of use rate plans to get people to charge their cars when it's best for the grid.

    • by Bo'Bob'O ( 95398 )

      If buying cars were simply a matter of price vs purely practical specifications, we'd all be driving Toyota Yaris or commercial vans. Nothing wrong with these vehicles, but sometimes people want to pay a little more to get a little something else or extra out of one of the items that is to most people one of their largest personal investments.

      Yes, for a small few it might be a choice to seem trendy or fashionable.. but so what? For the vast majority of people interested there are many big picture and pragma

    • I love the idea of electric cars, and Tesla is on my "lottery win" shopping list. With that said, if you apply hard numbers these cars do not make any sense at the current gas prices.

      What's with this "current gas prices" meme? The current gas prices have applied for maaaybe 3 weeks, if you're lucky. And suddenly people are absolutely giddy. Yay! Gas is free again! What? No it's not. It's temporary, despite the pronouncements of random Saudi princes [usatoday.com]. It's probably short term temporary, and there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth when it rebounds.

      Even if it's not short term temporary, I would be vastly surprised if gas prices stay this low for the lifetime of a new car pu

  • Does that mean that when they finally made a car with comfortable seats, it sold out? :)

    (My main problem with buying an S is that the seats actively hurt my back. Maybe because I'm 6'4. I don't know.)

    Also, does Tesla need systems developers? :)

  • And long for city with only pedestrian and bicycle paths and clean mass transit. Cargo and shipping is handled by an automated cart network hidden from public view.

    I can dream :(

  • "Tesla To Produce 'a Few Million' Electric Cars a Year By 2025"

    If man is still alive, if woman can survive... [youtube.com]

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...