A big company called Tesla makes electric cars. They want to make more money by not selling as many cars but by adding special features to them that make them smarter and better. This could be good for the company, but some people are worried because these new features might cost more money, and Tesla's cars were already expensive compared to other electric cars. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalized, as it implies that Tesla's tactical change will definitely deliver fewer vehicles but could raise profitability. However, the article does not provide any concrete evidence or data to support this claim. It also ignores the possibility of other factors influencing vehicle delivery and profitability, such as demand, supply chain issues, competition, etc.
2. The quote from Rusch and his team at Oppenheimer is taken out of context and used to justify Tesla's strategy. However, they are only expressing their opinion based on the assumption that the wider release of Full Self-Driving will accelerate training data collection and trigger incremental deferred revenue recognition in 1Q24. This is a speculative statement that has not been verified by Tesla or any other reliable source.
3. The article also mentions BYD, another electric vehicle manufacturer, as a comparison to Tesla. However, it does not provide any relevant data or analysis to show how BYD's strategy differs from Tesla's and why it might be more successful or less successful in terms of vehicle delivery and profitability. This is an unfair and uninformative comparison that distracts from the main focus of the article, which should be on Tesla's own performance and strategic decisions.
4. The inclusion of Global X Autonomous & Electric Vehicles ETF in the article is irrelevant and confusing, as it does not explain how this ETF relates to Tesla's strategy or performance. It also implies that Tesla's stock price is influenced by this ETF, which may not be true. This is a weak attempt to provide some context for Tesla's market situation, but it fails to offer any meaningful insights or analysis.