Tesla's main innovation and unique selling point was "attractive, high-end EVs", and later, "attractive, mass-market EVs". It was never "marginally more efficient mass production of cars".

Before SpaceX, there was little to no competition in reusable, cost-efficient rockets. Before Tesla, there was little to no competition in attractive, high-end EVs. That's why they're successful. There was, however, a lot of competition in car mass manufacturing. It was arrogant and misguided of Tesla and Musk to ignore industry knowledge in highly competitive areas.

Agreed on all points.

The lack of competition was itself a reflection of conventional wisdom in those industries, though, which is my point.

I was under the impression the gigafactory is a major factor in being able to deliver cars at the price point Tesla does. A decade later, and other manufacturers are still just starting to catch up in pricing and performance.

This is why Musk gets away with what he does, his fans never know better. The Freemont gigafactory isn't even producing close to as many cars as when it was the NUMMI plant run by GM and Toyota.

Tesla's competitive advantage was a willingness to cut corners. Other companies have been testing, developing production processes, building supply chains. You can bet there won't be a Bloomberg model 3 weekly production tracker for their cars since they'll make what they plan, which will actually happen when they say.

If you measure performance in 0-60 only, and pricing/efficiency in self reported/marketed EPA range (not actual real world range) then Tesla is definitely ahead.

Is there even a point to comparing output? I bet the only thing in common between those factories is the floor space.

What I meant is that they are selling a car at $38k that outperforms the competition on range, efficiency, safety, space, performance, tech, driving assists; it includes features like the panoramic roof that cost an arm and a leg as optionals on every other car. So clearly they are doing something different in their manufacturing.

> that the company wouldn't have been started if he had listened to industry experts

_he_? Elon Musk didn't start the company.

Yes. I think we're all aware what I meant and the ordering of Tesla's early founding and investment history.

If you are aware of that, then I'm not sure why you would include Tesla in the list of companies, as I don't see how that point would apply there. For SpaceX I'd agree, and with PayPal I don't know enough about it's history.

I don't see a significant difference between founding a company from scratch and buying a fledgling tiny company with a cool name that has accomplished very little, when the significance is the 99% of what happened afterward.

And neither does anyone else, really, which is why the detail is mostly ignored in common discussion.