No argument that EVs can be both practical and financially viable. My point is simply that a huge part of the market for Tesla cars are buying based on something other than a basic cost-benefit analysis. I'm pretty sure that most of the Teslas I see in Seattle aren't doing enough miles to justify their cost based on energy savings, unless you compare them against a "mid-range" Mercedes or BMW. Even in cases where buying Tesla pencils out on lifecycle costs alone, the Leaf may still be more attractive (though the Tesla's resale value probably complicates the picture).
Like the first gen Prius, having a Tesla is as much a status symbol as it is being green. I don't have a problem with it - whatever floats their boat - if it's beneficial for everyone in the end.
In some ways a Tesla is a downgrade on BMW/Mercedes: interior is a little spartan, and apparently the ride performance isn't as good. Reliability is also so-so, on the earlier models at least, although Tesla has been very proactive to fix issues. But, what's interesting is how successful Tesla has been despite the fact that they weren't able to get it near competitor quality on the luxury side of things. It shows how big the EV market -could- be, if manufacturers were just prepared to take (an admittedly big) risk and develop the technology properly, not make some half-arsed compliance car.
I honestly could see this doing a lot of damage to Toyota/Honda, if they don't react quick enough to the market shift that may occur in 2017/2018 when GM's Bolt & Tesla's Model 3 get released. They're pushing fuel cell EVs but pretty much anyone involved in the auto biz knows they're ridiculously impractical. Lots more needs to be sorted out before they'll work properly. They're using them only as good PR, sold in limited units, on restricted leases... "The Power of Dreams"... you really do have to dream hard to get a FCEV to work in the real world!