Before Apple, Field was VP of Design & Engineering and CTO at Segway.

I highly recommend the book Code Name Ginger, which is the remarkable story behind the Segway.

http://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Ginger-Behind-Segway/dp/1578...

What's remarkable to me is the arrogance of Kamen, when to almost everyone it was clear that the Segway was a solution in search of a problem, and would ultimately fail.

Sometimes you have to take a risk. The Segway could have panned out much more differently than it did, there was a chance that it could have succeeded big.

Also, most startups fail.

How could the Segway panned out differently? (Serious question). I was quite exited to see it at first, but realistically it doesn't have many advantages over a bicycle, and a lot of disadvantages (biggest one is price).

It would have depended on adoption and some open creative thinking. The product is very cool, I'm glad they took a risk on this and there will be a nice payoff for society of not them directly.

Has anyone seen the cheap Chinese segway that works strictly at the shoe level? They loon very cool, but I'm too afraid to try it. Haven't seen them in use outside of china yet. Imagine seeing someone standing on a roomba going really fast.

It gets used a lot in Europe for tourist group rounds around the cities. :)

I'm an European and I didn't see a Segway in person until I visited Florida. There I saw loads of security personnel riding Segways.

And they looked so incredibly dorky with their plump bodies and tucked in shirts.

I already seen Segways routes in Düsseldorf, London, Athens, Nice, Frankfurt Airport.

Also in Philly.

Interesting move. While I can see some overlap in experience leading large technical projects where industrial design and battery life are of paramount importance, I wonder how much of that experience will translate into actual car development.

From the outside looking in I'd rather fill that role with someone with car industry experience bringing actual cars to market, because battery life and industrial design are somewhat fungible, but if Tesla is late on bringing car models to market that has a serious effect on their timelines.

Did you even read the article? He has automotive experience (Ford) and other transportation experience (Segway).

I missed it the first time through, although I'm not surprised as in the article his previous automobile engineering experience seems downplayed.

Equating his segway experience to all of transportation seems a stretch.

According to his linked in profile he was a development engineer at Ford for 6 years and hasn't worked in the car industry for 20 years. Certainly he does not seem to possess any executive experience in the car industry or related to car development.

As a TSLA investor, it makes more sense to me to have someone in that role who actually has experience getting cars to market (ie. someone like Bob Lutz).

By the same logic, Apple shouldn't have hired him and Elon Musk should not have started Tesla.

I would say his industrial design experience at Segway (and Deka) was more relevant to Apple.

Let's not forget history here. Musk had a very hard time releasing the Roadster, and it was one of the most painfully delayed automotive launches in history. They were close to running out of money numerous times in the launch, and needed key loans and cash at key times (including a huge cash infusion from Musk himself) otherwise they would have failed. At least some of that based on the public information at the time can be attributed to Musk's inexperience in the car world.

They made it, but it wasn't without a lot of luck. I worry about decisions like this because if there's one thing Tesla really needs to execute on, it's getting new car models out the door in a very timely fashion.

Another example - Nardelli was also a brilliant leader at Home Depot, but he couldn't do enough to save Chrysler.

The car industry is a very different beast then building wheel chairs and segways. Personally I would prefer someone in the new car development driver's seat with a bit more experience. Putting someone without that experience is such a leadership role seems like a reckless move by Tesla.

This is all just my opinion. I'd be happy to discuss further and share opinions.

Numerous models may not be needed. Quality affordable cars will sell themselves.

Apple didn't need a range of iPhones. They needed one excellent one, produced at scale.

Musk didn't start Tesla.

Please don't start on that, because it's very misleading. Everyone involved settled that dispute years ago (2009): http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10357665-54.html?tag=mncol

Others had crucial roles as well, but without Musk providing the funding and management, Tesla would have just been another dead electric car company.

No, saying he is a founder is misleading. He played a critical role in Tesla and it surely would have failed if he were not involved but his initial involvement was as an investor in an existing enterprise.

There was a settlement that allows Musk to call himself "founder" in exchange for, I presume, some compensation. There was no legal ruling on facts only a private agreement between parties.

By that logic, Steve Jobs didn't start Pixar.

Yes, "that logic" being just plain old "logic". Jobs didn't start Pixar he invested in a spin-out of a division of an existing company.

From wikipedia

"the group, which numbered 40 individuals back then,[1] was spun out as a corporation in February 1986 with investment by Steve Jobs shortly after he left Apple Computer.[1]"

Well-played.

Would have been better-played 6 mos ago.

Why?..

Guessing a lame attempt to tweak Tesla for some hardware mishap such as the fire.

A self-contained fire, caused by hitting a large object, which only started spreading once emergency services broke through the battery casing. Exactly how is this a 'hardware mishap'?

If that's directed at me, you're preaching to the choir.

It wasn't Tesla's fault, but it was still a hardware mishap.

Are you trying to put down Tesla down for using a smart business tactic, while acquiring someone good?

Well, for one, it wasn't already clear to the public that TSLA was going to be successful then.

I don't see how the timing would have better then vs. now. It's a strategic move to bring someone talented from an extremely valuable company who produces "great" consumer products over to Tesla.

The investing public says otherwise:

https://www.google.com/finance/chart?q=NASDAQ:TSLA&tlf=12&ch...

So what was he waiting for?

Perhaps not to see how Tesla was going to do, but to see if Apple could continue its streak. After their latest announcement events, some may argue that streak has ended.

You are reading waaaay too much into this.

Don't you think that might have also made Field less eager to join them?