No. Use the Apple model. Steve Jobs was needed until the IPhone was really established (not to mention the IPod.) Only then should you bring in a guy like Cook.

Completely different scenarios, completely different companies. Steve Jobs was never the technical guy, he was more the visionary. He could get away with that, because he had really smart engineers and producing phones and computers is a lot simpler than producing cars. Elon Musk is a genius, but what does he really know about production or getting the cost down for an electric car more than any other CEO of a major auto company? Elon Musk is a visionary, but a visionary for an auto company is not as vital as a visionary for a tech or computer company. They need a guy in tesla who can increase production and lower cost, or sell at a different price point and change target market for their cars. They don't need someone who is going to tweet out a lot of reckless things while hemorrhaging money for the company.

> Use the Apple model. Steve Jobs was needed until the IPhone was really established ...

The Apple model was to fire their impetuous founder, decline slowly into mediocrity, bring back the founder, and then achieve historic levels of success. Perhaps Musk needs a Jobs-like break?

> until the IPhone was really established (not to mention the IPod.) Only then should you bring in a guy like Cook

If Jobs was healthy, he'd still be running Apple. And maybe they would have done something visionary since the iPad.

I think it's insane, the idea that we might have enough knowledge of Tesla as a company to make a decision like that.

I get it's a hypothetical and we're just navel gazing, but to even think our answers would be even remotely valid feels fairly arrogant.

I would imagine the share price would drop dramatically if he was replaced, which would hurt Tesla's badly needed ability to raise capital over the next few quarters. They desperately need a new CEO but Musk has dug them into such a big hole that it may be too late to find one.

Not me. Tesla is already in a precarious position and I expect it to fold pretty soon if Musk departs. Either that or they massively scale back their operations - in which case I will have no further interest in the company.

I would be far more optimistic if he was replaced with someone that has a good, established track record. Like, Alan Mulally. I'd go reserve a Model 3 today... :)

Emphatically yes; Musk being the current head of Tesla and SpaceX has been the defining characteristic in preventing me from seeking work at either company. I'd be sending out applications to both if he announced his departure (or even a long sabbatical).

I believe very much in the missions that Tesla and SpaceX romanticize, but I cannot reconcile those with Musk's public behavior. Calling people pedophiles on the internet, trying to suppress unionization efforts, and seemingly lying about going private entirely on a whim does not pass ethical muster for me.

I would sell Tesla to a large conglomerate that actually understands car production, like Toyota or VW.

Isn't there a good chance they'd just mothball the whole company and keep on making regular gasoline-engine cars?

Toyota already has plug-in cars that use lithium batteries. They'd probably merge Tesla into Lexus and open the Supercharger network to anyone who could pay.

Have to wonder if Toyota still have the keys to the NUMMI plant.

> Isn't there a good chance they'd just mothball the whole company and keep on making regular gasoline-engine cars?

All of those companies - and the entire industry - are investing heavily in their own electric cars; some already have announced dates when they will stop production of gas engines IIRC. Depending on the price, of course, I imagine they'd love to add Tesla's prestige, patents, and maybe their talent.

My uneducated guess is that's how Tesla will end, a division of a major car-maker. When did GM last add a new brand? Imagine the bidding.

Toyota/GM/Ford/VW/etc did not become big, successful corporations by dictating to consumers what they want to buy.

No, but they might be able to remain big, successful corporations by preventing consumers from buying anything else.

That kind of collusion is not only overtly illegal, but also extremely difficult to maintain, especially worldwide.

It's certainly illegal, and it might be difficult to maintain, but I'd argue that it happens quite often across many industries, and very well could happen here.

You described it indirectly but end result is same.

It would be a lot cheaper, in that case, to not acquire Tesla and just let it collapse.

Understanding car production is less important then for EV then massive battery investment and knowlage, building a integrated brand, global charging infrastructure and so on.

Toyota might be better at building profitable cars, but Tesla is better at building profitable EVs.

I think Tesla's failure at scaling their manufacturing is pretty good evidence against your claim. There are other brands making EVs without the same issues as Tesla.

They have scaled their manufacturing quite well be now. They are not top of the line but the have a real mass production car.

Have you actually looked at the production numbers of those other EVs? Because there is nobody outside of Tesla that has mass produced EV and even more imprtantly, to do it with profit mergin per car.

Teslas are the Top 3 most sold EVs in the US market. The model 3 is by now equaling the sum of all other EVs and is almost 100% of the growth in EVs.

Futhermore, the iPace, i3, Tycan and many others saw production delays as well. So the idea that you can let some established company do it and they will do way better then Tesla has jet to be shown.to be true.

The original Tesla Killer, the Bolt, is outsold by Tesla 15 to 1.

Competitors have announced many EVs but most will hit the market around 2020 and most of them will not produce near as many as the Model 3.

It's impossible to separate the higher demand for Tesla from their higher sales. It's possible that their sales are higher because they can make more, but it seems more likely that their sales are higher because demand for Tesla is so much higher.

What's clear is that we know Tesla has had (and may continue to have) issues with production. Meanwhile I can't find anything suggesting there were any production issues with the Chevy Bolt or Volt or Nissan Leaf, the other models I'm familiar with. I'm not familiar with any of "iPace, i3, Tycan" so I don't know what to look up there to see if there were comparable issues with them.

The Bolt and the Leaf has less production issue because they are far smaller production numbers. Also, we don't have close to as much news about problems in their plants.

Guess why you don't know about them, because they don't sell well or are delayed.

Tesla will always have production issue because they are always trying to grow. Every large company has production issues. The question is how much product can you produce at what price.

Which is part of what would make Tesla a valuable acquisition target.

Do you want one of the most successful founders and tech CEO ever to continue to run the company?

Äh, yes, Elon has made Tesla successful and he made it into a major car company that is still growth strongly.

How do you define "successful?"

If Elon is doing things that are illegal or otherwise just boneheaded now, how much leeway does he get? What would it take to make you decide he shouldn't be CEO?

How I define successful. Well, how about go back 10 years and look at the size of Tesla and SpaceX. And then look at them now.

I dont think anybody can argue that he was not succcessful.

But Tesla is not profitable, SpaceX claims to be but the veracity of the claim is untested. They're constantly at risk of collapse (due to bad management), and they don't seem to be self-sustaining - Tesla in particular needs infusions of cash constantly to function, and is essentially on life support. They do make good (or at least novel and fascinating) products, but the cost of doing so is extremely high.

Why does "big" == successful? I'm not saying money is the only thing we should ever optimize for, but I'm skeptical that growth is a viable alternative.

Edit: I've edited the first paragraph substantially because I did not accurately understand SpaceX's profitability vs Tesla's.

Profit doesn't matter growth matters. How can you live in the 21 century and still hold to the idea that profit is what matters? I mean we have seen so many company not make profit for a long time, were they all not successful?

I mean, Tesla could be profitable if they didn't fund massive amounts of expansion.

> Why does "big" == successful? I'm not saying money is the only thing we should ever optimize for, but I'm skeptical that growth is a viable alternative.

They are optimizing for money. They want more revenue, not more profit.

The question is not if the company is profitable, but rather if each product individually can be profitable.

You have any data to backup your claim that SpaceX is not profitable ?

In fairness, it's probably more accurate to say their profitability is not clear.

Their president says they are profitable, and they've claimed that several times over the last few years.[1] However, an expose from the WSJ from 2015 indicated they were quite the opposite then.[2] The Motley Fool suggested in 2017 that SpaceX might be on its way to profitability, but it was still unclear whether they really were or not.[3]

So what I should say is that Tesla is not profitable, and that SpaceX claims profitability, but that the claim is questionable. I'll update my post.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-shotwell-201805... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-s... [3] https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/11/will-spacex-earn-a...