One key issue that Tesla PR accidentally omits is whether owners are still responsible for 40K replacement if battery does indeed fail.
40K replacement basically tells user that go get a gas-powered car. If a fuel-injected engine fails, would it still cost just as much to replace? How about a BMW? or Mercedes? or Lexus?
Of course you have to pay if you are stupid. Same thing if you destroy your gas-powered car on purpose using some other method. It is not a 'fail', which implies a manufacturing error or similar.
Except in this case you wouldn't be destroying the battery "on purpose" obviously, but rather through neglect or ignorance. It's a fail in the sense that this technology has been exposed to be clearly unready for wide-scale adoption, and the company in question has barely even acknowledged the issue, let alone outlined steps it is taking to fix it or improve the design.
You can neglect and ignore maintenance of gas-powered engines too. Stop getting oil changes and never check/refill it and see what happens to your engine.
It will eventually be "bricked".
Just like gas-powered vehicles need to be maintained, so do electric ones. EVs actually happen to require less maintenance. Simpler too. I would say that the EV equivalent of oil changes is to keep it charged above some minimum.
Err...it will take a very long time for a conventional gas engine to get 'bricked' as you put it. And the cost to repair will not be $40K. This line of argument from the apologists it a little weak methinks.
40K replacement basically tells user that go get a gas-powered car. If a fuel-injected engine fails, would it still cost just as much to replace? How about a BMW? or Mercedes? or Lexus?