2020: Wozniak’s latest venture is called Efforce and aims to use cryptocurrency and blockchain technology to make it cheaper and easier for companies to fund ‘green’ projects.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/technology/apple-co-founde...

2017: Steve "Woz" Wozniak, cofounder of Apple Computer and inventor of the Apple II computer, announced on Friday the launch of his latest startup, Woz U.

https://www.inc.com/business-insider/steve-woz-wozniak-apple...

While I don't claim that Wozniak has any business running a space junk cleanup company - I am confused about your requirement that all founders must be serially successful ones for any of their ventures to matter.

Because it ends up as just noise. If there’s no track record of execution, there’s little hope if any that this will be fruitful in any capacity.

Does execution really matter? Elon Musk exists.

??? Execution on vision is the thing Elon Musk is most well known for, possibly more than anyone else in our current era.

This is the complete opposite of the truth on almost every front. Elon is really good at bluster and branding. The execution is never there at launch of one of his ventures and usually only halfway there years later, this applies to X.com, SolarCity, Tesla, and SpaceX, all of which were and in some cases still are failures even until this day. But surviving for long enough and with the right folks around you means that you can turn things around.

I don't know much about other Musk companies.

But if you claim that SpaceX isn't the leading Space company by a huge margin, or that their execution is somehow behind any other space company, you obviously do not know much at all about SpaceX.

The success of SpaceX has nothing to do with Musk and a lot to do with this woman: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell. That even you, who ostensibly cares quite a bit about SpaceX, don’t know this is a testament to how little execution matters.

I think your definition of execution is a little off, or at least, confused.

In a previous comment you wrote:

> But surviving for long enough and with the right folks around you means that you can turn things around.

Did Elon not hire and then promote Gwynne? Is recruiting the right people and keeping them happy and fulfilled not an important part of executing any vision?

If all you do as a CEO is hire smart people who make tons of money for your company while solving hard problems, you've succeeded as a CEO. What else does a CEO do?

If every company that a CEO touches is a tirefire until they are removed from day-to-day operations, is that good execution on their part? Just because they eventually hire the right people and those people are successful? (Ignoring of course that hiring is not a 1 person job.)

Even when they are a liability to the company through their actions, lying to shareholders and customers? I'm not so sure. If Elon had ever lead a company to success of his own volition then I could say different. But he mostly gets credit for other people's work -- that's how his inclusion into the list of founders of Paypal came about in the first place, how he came to be head of Tesla, and also now how folks mistakenly give him credit for the success of SpaceX.

> If every company that a CEO touches is a tirefire until they are removed from day-to-day operations, is that good execution on their part?

Maybe? I think it'd be silly to claim that Tesla and SpaceX are so successful that they were able to become world class companies even under hostile leadership. They are successful in part because of their leadership, such as Gwynne as you mentioned (god bless her).

> Even when they are a liability to the company through their actions, lying to shareholders and customers?

One might argue this is even the primary purpose of a CEO, to lie and lie and keep the illusion going until the engineers have enough time to actually deliver. Tim Cook had a similar bout with Apple Maps, AirPower, and the infamous car project, but he doesn't seem to be cast in the same light as Elon with FSD.

> If Elon had ever lead a company to success of his own volition

If I may, I don't think anyone has ever lead a company to success of their own volition, so this is a false premise. You're saying that tons of other people helped make these companies succeed, but this is true for every company, even the ones that eventually fail.

Elon is a complicated character and he's certainly not a saint, but he is at the very least involved in these companies, and while they are doing well he deserves at least some credit for selling a vision that excites investors and customers and keeps the lights on. As I learn more about the business world, I'm beginning to see that a lot of tech CEOs have a similar social function to rockstars: they get crowds to feel ecstasy and hope and headbang to the music while skilled operators in the background sell merch, records, and deals.

Someone who's serially unsuccessful is worse than someone who has no record.

I don't agree with this. Even though the attempt fails, the experience stays with you.

Could you explain your reasoning?

A single failure sure, but repeated failures shows that you aren't learning from failure.

With all due respect to Woz, having him headline your company is an admission of a scam. He's let his name get attached to so much garbage.

Every "space company" has to have a celebrity name attached to it, right? Even if they're not really a celebrity and no one remembers why they were famous.

I'm cynical about the actual need for the proposed service, but I wouldn't begrudge Woz the opportunity to rent his name out for joy or cash.

I still admire the man for his accomplishments and the role he played in shaping the modern world of computing. But I also recognize that his current role is to provide brand recognition for longshot companies.

I'd be interested in seeing a startup he's intimately involved with as a true cofounder. If he's just on board for name recognition/funding I'm less intrigued.

Because Woz.

Even naysayers took time to read &/| post.

His name will get headlines and PR no matter what he is doing. Just a fact in the tech biz for being who he is.

You want entrepreneurs who don't fail? Then they aren't entrepreneurs.

I do. I respect the guy, but this seems like a "me too" (the traditional meaning, as in someone trying to assert "Hey, I'm a player, too"). It's a worthy cause, but I think his major contribution may be his celebrity cache.

Musk has a name re: Space based on accomplishments, hands down. Branson's move extends the Virgin enterprises, and Bezos has a similar business plan and track record as Branson. But now comes Woz, older and much later to the game, and with no background of experience.

His name, face, and personality will bring in investors, though, I'm sure.