I think I agree with everything except that.
What I'm saying is we can't have everything that's positive about Telsa, but completely discard Musk.
What we _should_ hope for is for the current version of Musk to become a better version of Musk - say, one that can build a viable EV company and help bring about a global transition away from combustion-powered transport, but without the vile personal attacks, impulsive stock-price-affecting comments, absurd PR stunts, overworked workforce etc.
I'm well aware that the world doesn't currently have clear answers as to how people can make such profound changes to their personality, but I think it is where more discussion and research needs to be in order for the world to find and develop the leaders who can steer us through the big challenges.
It was fall 2016 that Musk made 3 unilateral, and delusional strategic decisions: the Alien Dreadnought, Solar City, and HW2. I call it the ASH doctrine: Musk's 3 point plan to reduce Tesla to ashes. Before that, I thought Tesla had a chance, but since late 2016 I've been on Tesla deathwatch. And now, here we are, no solar shingles, no $35k Model 3, no full self driving, no money, no profit, no credibility, and no surprises to anyone who has been watching this without Musk approved rose coloured glasses.
The bonfire of his vanity is gloaming, and yet the fans are still fanning the flames.
Maybe we could look at Uber, but it's too soon to tell. And The new management there seems earnest, but I'm not sure they're looking so hot from an actual business perspective.
I don't know, how visionary and/or toxic would you consider the founders of Tesla to be before they got the boot?
If we're just looking into this question to understand how important neurosis is in creating greatness, I think we need the more obvious counterfactual first.
But better is relative.
Otherwise someone responds with an example and you just say that it doesn't count.
That's what underpins my point of view on this: if we were better at supporting talented-but-flawed people through personal transformation instead treating them with hatred and ridicule every time they misstep, we could have more great leaders and more great companies.
Just for an anecdotal counterpoint, I endured severe burnout and ruined my health to the point of almost dying. I'm still struggling to regain my health 3 years later.
To be fair, it's not 100% sure that the burnout caused my health issues (multiple pancreatitis attacks and major relapse of a dormant neurological condition), but some doctors said it was likely that stress had contributed. Personally, I'm certain that the two are connected.
Things were quite grim for me too and I suspect my life might have been at risk had I continued on the destructive path.
But I was able to correct and turn things around - though the recovery has taken as long as 10 years (depending on when you start measuring from) and is still in progress.
But I know my life is not in danger anymore and I’ve had a long enough period of things steadily getting better that I can be confident of that continuing.
I’m quite confident your stress contributed to your health issues; I’ve extensively researched the mind-body link, and that’s been the key to my recovery.
You can contact me (email in bio) if you’d like any pointers.
Regardless, best wishes in your journey.
Some industries operate under almost continuous crunches, the video games sector is notorious for this, and it might be that this is the case here too, and that my friend is just lucky to be on a team that is spared being overworked. It doesn't matter that people work on something they're passionate about, at a certain point it gets too much for anyone. I also got close to a burnout, and I did learn important lessons about managing my work life balance, working passionately while avoiding toxic stress, etc [wrote too much personal stuff, pasted under].
To get back to the point though, I wonder whether I would be able to remember these lessons and manage my work-life balance correctly, if I thought my work was as world changing as what Tesla and Space X are doing. I am deeply grateful that people like Elon Musk and the many others in these companies are willing to make decisions that might deprive them of time with their loved ones, potentially affect their health too, to bring such a change about.
I mean, the overarching goal of Space X to make life multi-planetary might seem like PR fluff to some, but I agree that we will extinguish ourselves if we stay on one planet. I would prefer that governments pool resources and achieve this public good through public means, as I find dangerous that a private company might end up having a monopoly on affordable space access. However, our governments fail on this and can't even agree on curbing climate change effectively, though it is a much more obvious danger, so I can only support Space X in their endeavor, and wholeheartedly wish them success.
-- [the personal stuff] I once worked 6 months without a single day off (work weeks of about 90 hours), which to some may appear like a manageable amount of stress, but I was in my early 20s and didn't know how to do this properly. We did make our deadline and things that needed to happen in that time frame did, but after it, lo and behold, the cough I'd had for a month for no apparent reason suddenly stopped. Good that it did too, as my throat was so irritated I was coughing a bit of blood in the end. Sorry for the gory detail there, but just to point out that being overworked does have some very real and physical repercussions, besides also leading to painful life choices. Not realizing my grandfather was in his final days when he was admitted to the hospital with a bad cough, and not getting there in time to say goodbye, is my personal low point in this regard, and something I have regretted ever since. I wish I hadn't needed to make such a terrible error in judgement to learn this lesson, but I did not make this mistake again, and prioritizing family and friends over work, however important whatever task or deadline might seem in the instant, is something I very much kept it mind since. It has made me much happier, and hasn't negatively impacted my work output in any way I can measure.
Loosers like to celebrate failures of people doing better than them.
This zero-sum mindset that you're a 'loser' to even suggest ways a company might be a great company, without you know, the founder being an asshole is dangerous and actually shuts down constructive criticism.
> What we _should_ hope for is for the current version of Musk to become a better version of Musk
Or alternatively, he gets punished like he should be (e.g. SEC violations), cedes control and the next person who looks up to people like Musk realizes that there are rules to follow and not following them have real world consequences.
People forget about the issues that come with the concentration of wealth, which is unfortunately one of the negative externalities of letting Musk get away with what he has done.
I too want a world where a company like Tesla succeeds, but I also don't want a world where we mix this acceptance of free markets with acceptance of socialism where it benefits small amounts of individuals much more so than the masses.
Last I heard the established automakers were basically laughing at the quality and amount of automation on their production lines. Has this changed?
https://www.investopedia.com/news/teslas-hyperautomated-asse...
Well does another SpaceX/Tesla exist? I don't think so. So it's very possible that that is true. Maybe the trait to start impossible companies and to work impossible hours is actually the same trait.
1) Increasingly more expensive gas and more rigorous fuel-consumption standards.
2) Massive increase in lithium ion battery production from consumer electronics;
3) A willingness of VCs to bankroll years of massive losses;
4) A federal program of offering massive subsidies to electric cars.
These things didn't exist 15 years ago. (Which is not to say that Tesla doesn't deserve a lot of credit for capitalizing on them, but Tesla's success is not evidence that existing car manufacturers were "sitting on their asses." It's also just factually wrong. Toyota and GM both produced electric cars in late 1990s, early aughts, way before Tesla was founded. But at the time, consumer surveys showed that they would only buy electric cars if they were sold for tens of thousands of dollars less than a gasoline car. All those phenomena closed that gap: exploding gas prices made gasoline cars relatively more expensive; federal and stage governments offered up to $10,000 in total incentives for buying an EV; and lithium ion battery technology resulted in major improvements in weight and range.)
The fact remains that none of the existing car manufacturers decided to even try to compete with Tesla until it was painfully obvious that Tesla's going to "make it" (i.e. Model S) and that consumers love their electric cars.
That happened about 5 or so years ago. Not 10 years ago. Not 15 years ago. It happened because of Tesla/Musk, and would likely be very much delayed if it wasn't for him.
They had a chance to improve technology, satisfy consumer demand (Apple showed a decade ago that consumers don't know what they want) and help save the planet, but they didn't. Shame on them.
Edit: I don't want to be argumentative, I think we mostly agree. I'm just saying that the rest of the companies all missed a huge market opportunity, same as I keep saying for all computer companies that make shittier laptops than Apple...
You're just completely wrong on the chronology.
The federal tax credits were in place for the 2009 tax year: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tax-incentives-why-roadster-costs.... The Roadster was released in late 2008 (only 150 units shipped in 2008). Almost all of Tesla's capital raise came after 2010: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimcollins/2018/04/25/a-brief-h....
> The fact remains that none of the existing car manufacturers decided to even try to compete with Tesla until it was painfully obvious that Tesla's going to "make it" (i.e. Model S) and that consumers love their electric cars.
Again, your chronology is completely wrong. By the time the Model S came out, GM had already been selling the Chevy Volt for almost two years. And throughout both cars' run, the Chevy Volt has been selling at approximately the same volume as the Model S (both car sold 110-130k units through the end of 2017). The Nissan Leafs also came out in 2010, and more Leafs had been sold as of the beginning of 2018 than total Tesla vehicles.
To recap: other car manufacturers (GM and Toyota) were first to market with EVs, in the late 1990s. They were also first to market with mainstream popular EVs, in 2010, two years before the Model S.
Finally we can even take things like the federal automotive bailouts. Ford, for instance, took a sub-inflation rate loan of $5.9 billion from the taxpayer, which they unsurprisingly have not paid back. It was supposed to be used to develop fuel efficient vehicles. A literal check for $5.9 billion just blows every point in your list out of the water. Yet, Ford not only dawdled but most recently announced they've cancelled every sedan/car in their line except the Mustang and one upcoming vehicle. That leaves them 90% of their lineup distributed towards trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. And the next time gas prices spike, we can bet they'll come begging for another handout from the taxpayer. Just brilliant business acumen by these guys.
Tesla has done a good job making popular, well-rated cars. But this idea that they were "first" while others were "sitting on their asses" is just completely factually incorrect. Competing car manufacturers dipped their toes into EVs years before Tesla even existed, and everyone rushed to build mainstream EVs in the same 2007-2012 time frame, with Nissan and GM releasing their products first.[1]
[1] Also, I don't see the relevance of the Ford loan? I'm not the one trying to add a moral dimension to the history of EVs. There is none. The relevance of the federal subsidies is not "oh, Tesla took subsidies." But rather that subsidies were necessary to make EVs attractive to consumers. The EV1 was canceled because consumer surveys in the late 1990s showed that you'd have to sell an EV for $28,000 less than a gas car to get consumers to buy it. Rising gas prices closed up a lot of that gap, along with advances in battery technology improving range. But the $10,000 or so in federal and state tax credits also played a huge role in making EVs palatable to consumers.
I think Tesla has revolutionized the automotive industry by making a desirable electric car, the technology they have within the car is nothing exclusive to Tesla. Other companies can build electric cars, but Tesla made the first truly desirable electric car.
SpaceX has 100% revolutionized space flight and I hope this continues.
This is exactly my point. Tesla didn't happen because of Musk's intelligence, or talent, or ingenuity, or genius. It happened because of Musk's drive. Before Tesla/Musk, electric cars weren't even part of the public consciousness (even though they were completely technically feasible, as you agree). It was a revolutionary idea.
Musk is a world-class rent seeker.
You can argue that someone else could have stepped in, but that someone had to be an outsider, not an established car manufacturer. That is something like Tesla and Musk, but with another name.
It's hard to say what would've happened in a hypothetical timeline. But Tesla didn't invent the underlying technology, the traditional car makers were already working on it. Tesla wasn't responsible for EV subsidies in 2008, it was a combination of exploding gas prices, middle east instability, the Iraq war, and Obama getting elected. Good chance that the EV market would've taken exactly the same course without Tesla.
Sure there was that Toyota with NiMH batteries. How many of them were sold for enirety of its production run.. 2000? 4000? With Toyota resources and vast marketing force?
My friend had a 1990 VW Golf electric smallseries with lead batteries. It was also fun to ride.. as an experience. Like a hot air balloon ride. But not a very practical everyday car. It was also so obscure it has no own Wikipedia page.
Tesla took the EV business from the dumpster and made it mainstream.
To the extent that any electric cars are mainstream (and I would ague they are not--Toyota sells more RAV4s each year than all the cars Tesla has ever sold in its history), several mainstream models were released around the same time. The Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf came out in 2010, and the Model S in 2012. The Volt and Model S have sold a similar number of units, with the Leaf selling about double that.
People here in suburban Maryland don't give a shit about high performance, "cool," cars. But they love RAV4s, and Nissan Rogues, and Honda CR-Vs. Each of those models sells more units every year than Tesla has sold in its entire history.
And of course old ICE designers are incapable of marketing their EVs as anything but cute. That's why they never could have made this market what it is, on their own?
People don't give a shit about sports sedans. The Prius proved there was a market for a cute little car that was environmentally friendly, and that's what's driving most of the EV market right now. When someone releases a sub-$30k cross-over SUV (you know, the cars people actually buy), then you'll see EV sales really take off.
And the stats I read show the Tesla model S leading the Leaf?
Is their success hanging on Musk calling someone a pedo? Because much of that hate came from unwarranted stuff like this.
Him doing stupid things (arguably getting involved in the Thai cave situation at all, let alone calling the guy rude names) has added more fuel to the fire recently, but it was definitely a fire that was already burning strongly.
A reasonable person might have liked Musk until this flurry of misplaced opinions, that were better kept for himself. After this they may have liked him less or not at all.
But have you seen many articles on the subject of how even when you approach criticizing Musk in a perfectly reasonable way supported by evidence you're all but guaranteed to get a vitriolic reaction from rabid fans, downvotes, insults, threats, get your comments deleted, etc.?
In real life (not a bubble where you only get the news that support your views) there's actually a lot less criticism for Musk than any other CEO in his position gets. Especially since both himself and Tesla have been involved in plenty of polarizing situations bordering a scandal. He's still a media darling not because he doesn't deserve criticism but because criticizing him is a PR nightmare and most publications would rather avoid it. Or at the very least they do it "softly" and let it die out quickly.
Example: If any other company (think Uber) charged you 6000E for a promise that wasn't fulfilled even years later and that even killed some people they would be nailed to the cross. Tesla is praised for the very same. Until a few months ago every Tesla website had the Autopilot description as "Fully self driving, safer than a human driver". Now, in civilized countries at least, they are forced to use more generic language like "most", "potential for", "in our opinion". How many articles tackled this? And how many tackled his Thai cave PR stunt?