101–110 of 282 posts
What are actually Elon Musk's engineering talents? It seems he is not much more than a marketeer. It's not even clear his visions of reusable rockets and electric cars were original...he is known to take credit for subordinate's ideas and achievements.
I consult for a large energy conglomerate that wants to get into this market from the energy suppliers side, but the problem is that they are completely clueless when it comes to expanding beyond their traditional business. In their vision, they'll supply customers with solar panels, an EV charger, home battery, heating solutions and as a backup their traditional business: gas and electricity. All integrated in a nice package.
It took them two years to set up a department that sells their first product (besides gas and electricity): an outdated EV charger, from a company they bought that stopped innovating after acquisition and is now lagging behind competition. Not a car, just the charger.
Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…
Funny there were people just like you saying the exact same thing about Enron when Bethany ran her famous article back then (yes this is the same author that took down Enron). As with Tesla Enron was big on "innovation". Innovations fail, and the stress of dealing with them tends to lead CEOs into unethical behavior. There's nothing wrong with taking risks and failing. There is something wrong with taking investor mo…
Anyone buying into Musk's vision understands that they're buying into all of it, for better or worse. Either that, or they're too dumb to be entrusted with large amounts of money, and markets have a way of handling that situation quickly and efficiently.
He (and all the brilliant people at his companies who work so hard) are delivering to humanity, a future where we produce and consume energy sustainably, and are out in space exploring our solar system. Everyone at the companies is there because on some level they believe in this vision. So I (and many Tesla shareholders like me) am willing to look the other way with respect to his fiduciary responsibility. There are…
But I appreciate the honesty about it.
He (and all the brilliant people at his companies who work so hard) are delivering to humanity, a future where we produce and consume energy sustainably, and are out in space exploring our solar system. Everyone at the companies is there because on some level they believe in this vision. So I (and many Tesla shareholders like me) am willing to look the other way with respect to his fiduciary responsibility. There are…
> willing to look the other way with respect to his fiduciary responsibility For how long? The companies he is trying to produce need to at some point be financially sustainable in order to meet their mission. And when should we wonder whether Musk is mixing up the mission with his own narcissistic endeavors?
Well, Tesla is one long stream of gambles. You dont get to school an established, global, trillion dollar industry without taking risks. The only notable thing here is that hating on Musk is really popular these days. So the failed gambles (this, falcon doors, the initial overautomation of the Model 3 production, etc) will be highlighted and mocked, while the successful gambles will go unmentioned or incorporated as…
Hating on Musk is popular these days in large part because it is becoming more and more obvious that he is in many ways a con artist. Look at his recent self-driving car promises, for example. I don't believe that he is so misinformed as to actually believe his own self-driving car promises, so I view his over-promising as deliberate deception.
You don't think Musk believes he can do anything? He always over-promises but that's not exactly the same as a con artist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobodies perfect. Not even Musk. So I suggest accepting both the faults and successes of the man as a complete package. Tesla is one of the many cases of Silicon Valley syndrome where you run a company at negative profit forever while claiming to make all these substantial advances (some laudable, others stupid) in an attempt to disrupt something that's been working for decades for specific reasons. There's a reason…
It's not really one of those cases though. Electric cars were all but dead. They were considered a joke ("golf carts") until Telsa challenged the status quo and changed the industry. Many seem to have already forgotten this.
The public may have thought that electric cars were all but dead. But smart people knew that their time had not yet come.
Oh, and look! Excepting high end niches that Tesla figured out, and government subsidies, that timeline from 20 years ago looks to come true pretty much on schedule.
I admire Elon Musk. Without him, reusable rockets wouldn't have happened for many more years. But electric cars would have happened with or without him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny there were people just like you saying the exact same thing about Enron when Bethany ran her famous article back then (yes this is the same author that took down Enron). As with Tesla Enron was big on "innovation". Innovations fail, and the stress of dealing with them tends to lead CEOs into unethical behavior. There's nothing wrong with taking risks and failing. There is something wrong with taking investor mo…
The difference is, Enron didn't build any cars, manufacture any solar panels, or launch any rockets. Anyone buying into Musk's vision understands that they're buying into all of it, for better or worse. Either that, or they're too dumb to be entrusted with large amounts of money, and markets have a way of handling that situation quickly and efficiently.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabhol_Power_Station
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2002/01/01/b...
They are only remembered for their financial "innovations" which was ultimately their downfall. But to suggest they didn't make anything tangible is false. They even had a "Netflix" style streaming service setup with Block Buster at one point.
This bit seems pretty damning: > As SolarCity struggled to raise money from institutional investors, it began offering individuals a chance to buy what it called Solar Bonds. (“Now you can get paid while driving the solar revolution,” the marketing material said.) But there were few takers—so other parts of the Musk empire took up the slack. According to the shareholder lawsuit, SpaceX acquired $255 million of the bo…
SpaceX's stated goal is "occupy Mars". Being able to land and deploy solar panels at scale is essential to this goal. And Musk has learned the hard way not to trust third party suppliers that he doesn't control. SpaceX's aspirational goal is to launch something Mars-wards in the 2022 window to identify where the base will be and have some resources. Then send several vehicles and a few people in 2025 to set up a miss…
Mars is much smaller than Earth with much more hostile environment. I heard some ideas of growing trees or putting air on Mars, but just to adjust a flow of a river on Earth could cost millions of dollars; if you add complexity to get it done on Mars I don't think a price tag could be even put on it.
Visiting Mars - sure who wouldn't want it, but other than biologist and geologist, I doubt masses would want to migrate and live there, making SpaceX worth billions in process (that assuming somehow SpaceX would be given an exclusivity to park their rockets on Mars - a body to give such approval doesn't even exist and I doubt any single country can claim Mars' ownership)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobodies perfect. Not even Musk. So I suggest accepting both the faults and successes of the man as a complete package. Tesla is one of the many cases of Silicon Valley syndrome where you run a company at negative profit forever while claiming to make all these substantial advances (some laudable, others stupid) in an attempt to disrupt something that's been working for decades for specific reasons. There's a reason…
All the talented people that you mentioned were laughing when he proposed reusable rockets, and we all know how it ended.