I initially thought buying twitter was about converting massively overvalued TSLA stock into only somewhat overvalued TWTR stock. I now think I was wrong.
Maybe he is really being paid by the Saudis to intentionally ruin Twitter to reduce the freedom of speech
This is giving me "homophobes are actually raging homosexuals" energy.
Not sure what kind of rationale could arrive at ur conclusion
Because the sell the whole time was to let people roleplay as famous people. And that would have worked a bit more if the actual celebrities didn't immediately respond with "ew, no"
The features are ... pretty crummy. Longform tweets nobody wants to read, up to what ... 40 hour videos that nobody will watch. A basic functionality like edit?
And now the funniest one: getting paid to tweet, which the biggest accounts on Twitter got joke RPM to entice people to sign up for blue. I feel really bad for anyone who thinks they're going to make their $8 back.
He can't get any of this right and he seriously is already talking about becoming a bank or payment system? Good luck.
Conspiracy theories aside, one has to wonder how all the geniuses running the sovereign wealth funds and investment banks that backed his Twitter takeover missed all the red flags. It's almost as if they don't have any idea what they are doing. Or they really bought into a cult of personality rather than a business strategy.
What do you think now ?
Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. But for creating a highly successful company twice, luck can't be a similarly major explanation, since it isn't "bound to happen" that someone who was highly successful once will be highly successful again. Because the number of people with one highly successful company is very small, unlike the number of people with zero highly successful companies. (If you throw a die ten times and get a six ten times, that is massive luck, which means that you almost certainly won't manage to do it again.)
So when people have one successful company, that may well be partly due to sheer luck, but if so, on their second attempt they almost certainly won't be so lucky. That's exactly what Jeff Bezos shows with Blue Origin. He started earlier than Musk did with SpaceX, had more money, and still is far less successful.
It totally is bound to happen to someone. They get the right people involved and find the right contracts and make the right decision, it’s mostly timing.
The Amazon.com e-commerce store, Kindle (category-defining), the Amazon fulfillment network (rivaling UPS/FedEx), and of course AWS. That's at least 4 distinct very successful companies. But the way in which one success enabled the next is more obvious, so you don't want to separate them.
The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio.
> The Amazon.com e-commerce store
This was mostly a copy of eBay which used the existing Amazon market dominance.
> Kindle (category-defining)
Kindle came after the excellent Sony e-book readers. The reason why Kindle was so much more successful was the existing market dominance of Amazon combined with the fact that they used a proprietary Kindle-specific file format to squash the competition.
> The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio.
SpaceX was not a "second act", except if you count PayPal as his first successful company. SpaceX was founded before Tesla. They do offer a global satellite network which brings Internet to remote areas around the world. That's quite different from a mere "private space program". As for the Gates foundation: This is not a profit driven company, so it is difficult to estimate how successful it is relative to the funds it has. I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. (He definitely did things which people might classify as altruistic, such as paying for Ukraine's Starlink access for several months.)
They literally are separate companies. There's no debate to be had here. Your assertion is just not true.
> I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism.
Gates doesn't fire and forget. He plays an active role in his foundation.
You can also be lucky several times.
He is, and the success of SpaceX compared to Blue Origin is explained by the difference between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.
> You can also be lucky several times.
Yes, but that's very improbable.
That one specific person will be very lucky multiple times is indeed improbable, but that someone will be lucky will over time be expected.
For all we know she is "running" SpaceX in the sense that she handles most smaller day-to-day decisions, but there is no evidence that she makes the large and important decisions about Starship and Starlink. All the evidence points to Musk making those decisions. It is even doubtful if she is more capable by herself than Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin, since she hasn't started a large successful company, unlike Bezos. The situation is probably similar for Linda Yaccarino, the new Twitter CEO. For the big decisions, Musk remains in charge.
Elon is self described with Aspergers Syndrome. This is from an interview :
“Other features of Asperger's syndrome include difficulty interacting with peers, inappropriate social or emotional behavior, and engaging in repetitive routines. Both children and adults with Asperger's syndrome are at an increased risk for depression, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mood and anxiety disorders, and other mental health disorders.”