That would assume that hydrogen is a superior fuel. It's not. It's much less efficient than batteries and worse than hydrocarbons in every way except for CO2. But CO2 is not a problem if the hydrocarbons just isn't from fossils.

In an abstract way: we are all part of a gigantic hydrocarbon economy. We are carbon based life forms, we're everything absorbs and emits CO2. We need hydrocarbons for almost everything we make. Why would we create a new hydrogen economy? Does it have any use except for energy storage?

Elon Musk is sceptical because he thinks about the fundamental physics behind technology.

Hydrogen is a gimmick which plays on a knee-jerk reaction against CO2, and a very short sighted view which assumes the that batteries won't get better or that we won't get efficient fuel cells for hydrocarbons and CO2 neutral production (while assuming a breakthrough in hydrogen fuel cells).

If you want to predict the future, you have to consider physics, not what's cool (the exhaust is water! )

Hydrogen is a shitty fuel. Hard to contain, burns too easy, explosive.

For pedestrian uses, yes. But it could be used in more specialized applications that already require a lot of attention. E.g. commerical airplanes.

That's not really life or industry changing though.

Depends on your life or industry.

People talk down things for all reasons, one of them being they legitimately such. Not everything is like this Jobs example (and in fact Jobs himself has earnestly talked down lots of stuff that he never changed course on).

In this case fuel cells seem to have the same issues they had 20+ years ago when they were touted as the feature.

Has the tech improved in recent years? Last I looked into it, there were still big problems with lifespan.