Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

I think there is a clear distinction between trying something new that no one has done before and trying something that many other people have attempted before and failed.

For example, was Tesla a success because of some unique ingenuity by Musk? It seemed to me that his success was more the result of a commitment, both personally and financially, to building EVs that no one had previously had. Yes, that eventually led to success. But he didn't succeed were others tried and failed. He succeeded were the other auto manufacturers didn't even try because of their own bias towards the status quo. With Twitter he would need to succeed where every other social media platform has failed.

View on HN

> It seemed to me that his success was more the result of a commitment, both personally and financially, to building EVs that no one had previously had.

Not even that. Other people founded the company in 2003; he became Tesla's fourth CEO when they were about to launch the Roadster in 2008.

I don’t know why this is such a meme. According to elon basically him, jb and martin eberhard founded tesla which was a holding company that acquired AC propulsion and the basic IP.

Regardless, of how you label it Elon created Tesla and there is no Tesla without elon.

Do we say the Warren Buffet owes everything to the founder of the New Bedford based Jewelry company Berkshire Hathaway? Hate Musk all you want but IDK why people try and discredit him with stuff like this

EDIT: Changed AP => AC

> According to elon basically him, jb and martin eberhard founded tesla which was a holding company that acquired AP propulsion (i think it was called) and the basic IP.

That's not what the actual founders say though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblPwXFb7TE

They say he was not a founder within the first minute of the video.

He was definitely not a founder of Tesla - it was a small startup in the industrial area of San Carlos.

People get so hung up on this.

Musk was the first investor in Tesla, and chairman of the board from the beginning. While chairman, he was involved in the business. He took over as CEO in 2008 and has grown Tesla into the world's largest car company.

Trying to claim Tesla's success is not due to Musk is just wrong.

> the world's largest car company

Nitpick: The most valued car company. Many larger companies in terms of employees and car output. Everything else sounds right though!

The commitment is notable, even if he came in later in the game.

I also think it's worth noting that he brought the best of current "good enough" manufacturing practices to luxury automobiles. I think this is the fairest examination of that, since it includes Elon himself: https://jalopnik.com/best-of-2021-in-epically-nerdy-intervie...

Our expectation around cars is that the build quality will be good from day one; this kind of incremental improvement approach is not common. IMHO it's also sub-par and somewhat dangerous for something as deadly as a car, but that's probably a side point for the current discussion.

We also see this with the Hyperloop. Big optimism, and the first actual implementation in Vegas kind of sucks. Maybe it'll improve over time, maybe not, but there's certainly an initial quality gap.

The question I'd ask is what does the equivalent look like for Twitter? I sort of think the "do it crappy, see how to improve it later" policy is more typical for social media.

> I also think it's worth noting that he brought the best of current "good enough" manufacturing practices to luxury automobiles. I think this is the fairest examination of that, since it includes Elon himself:

I wouldn’t say best of ”good enough” .Tesla is actually one of the worst in terms of ”normal” car quality, even when compared to non-luxury cars. It has great battery, electric motors and even software, but normal items which you can see in normal car, are in the lowest side on quality. Also the way how you feel the car when driving is critized being B quality when compared for example German cars.

In many countries it has been listed on the best place on fault statistics (have most of then)

When you buy Tesla, you invest on EV research, not so much for luxury car while it might drive itself. You get a glance for the future.

That's exactly what I'm getting at; I phrased it poorly.

Teslas, especially during the initial production runs for any given model, are built like Wayfair furniture. Good enough to do the job, but without a high level of quality. Turns out consumers will accept that.

From that point of view, indeed it is good enough then.

I think GP was making a different point, that I happen to agree with, which is that Tesla invests heavily in certain areas (battery tech, drivetrain, performance, safety) and virtually ignores other areas (creature comforts, quality of interiors, body assembly quality at times). So depending on what things you personally weigh heavily, a Tesla seems like either the deal of the century or an overpriced hunk of garbage.

Ignorance might not be on purpose: Tesla is very new manufacturer and other brands have experience and data from decades. It is hard compete in that sense.

Hm. I could nitpick the specific areas (I don't think they're great on safety with regard to self-driving), but that's a valid way to think about it. I wouldn't buy a Tesla, but I also recognize that Musk pushed the industry forward with regard to EVs. I certainly buy products from some companies which have similar trade-offs.

Returning to the Twitter question: gosh, I hope Elon decides to invest heavily in areas I care about and doesn't ignore aspects which I think are vitally important.

> are built like Wayfair furniture. Good enough to do the job, but without a high level of quality. Turns out consumers will accept that.