"Brin & Page are widely regarded as nice guys, and so is Satya Nadella"
Actually, when I was there Brin and Page had a reputation for being somewhat brutal, especially Larry. Not in a loud and brash way but in the sense that if they were doing a product review or whatever, and one of them thought your product sucked, they'd just say something like "This sucks, why have you been wasting your time on it?" and feelings be damned. They just didn't really care about cushioning criticism apparently. I actually recall them sort of sarcastically insulting random employees, VPs or even entire projects at TGIF if they were being dumb, overly entitled or underperforming, in the way you'd not really expect ... as if those people worked somewhere totally different.
I don't know anything about Nadella but it's worth noting that he didn't build the company, he's more like a steady pair of hands. Bill Gates on the other hand had a similar reputation to Page and Brin, especially when doing product reviews. If he didn't like something he'd let you know in the bluntest way possible.
So it's not really clear to me to what extent Musk's recent behavior is genuinely abnormal. It may be simply that at the moment relatively few big tech firms are run by founder types. Actually, maybe only Facebook is right now? Others are across the board being run by 'calm' types chosen, one might suspect, for their ability to effectively execute on the foundations laid down by their predecessors.
I think there's significant distinctions between them though. Those founders usually prioritize success of their business so they will accept corrections if it turns out to be a significant risk to the business.
IMO, Elon's narcissism blocks him from taking any kind of such "corrections" because his priority is on building his own narrative of being a genius entrepreneur and engineer. (This explains that "code review" farce pretty well...) If he corrects his path, then it will be publicly portrayed as his defeat so he just can't.
This worked pretty well for him until now since he was able to equate Tesla/SpaceX as himself in public perception. If he can build the genius narrative, then it will be a significant advantage for those businesses as well unless there are undeniable public failures. He is a competent businessmen so he managed most of the smaller gradual risks pretty well. But something big like Twitter is probably out of his ability, or not. We'll see.
I don't. The culture of secrecy came from the top and they're both quite private men (very private, in the case of Page). Very little about their management style is documented and to be clear, what I'm saying is second hand knowledge. I was a cog - attended many TGIFs and got emailed by Sergey once, but never had a product review or other kind of important meeting with them.
It's worth stressing that I don't think either of them were bad people or even mean. Being very direct with feedback seems to be a common trait of successful founders and CEOs. I guess when you review as many products as they do, and have built at great expense a place a lot of people want to work, and decisions matter a whole lot, being indirect and super-polite seems like a poor use of time. Also people don't like getting negative feedback, so unless it's ultra-clear it probably just doesn't sink in.
I don't much know about SpaceX, but I stopped at "Tesla being objectively successful." Nothing at all indicates that for me. It's definitely popular and making big moves, but so did FTX. Given empty promises, shoddy design, crypto and other financial f**ery, etc, I see no good reason to strongly believe Tesla is in anything for the long haul.
Tesla has 68% of the electric car market, 20% of the luxury market, and 2-3% of the overall auto market. Where does your personal definition of successful begin?
Just not enough time in the market + Elon being good at capital raising and cheerleading. I'm not saying they're definitely a failure, I'm 100% saying there's no reason to necessarily believe that this sustains in the future.
"Tesla has a real shot at being successful" is definitely true. "Tesla is unquestionably already a success" is not.
That’s not really comparable. Tesla make tangible products that are readily sold and actively used all over the world. Their success has been so great that it pushed other companies to move into the EV market. Tesla are known to make premature promises sure, but they do eventually deliver on those promises.
“Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York, from home in LA to let’s say dropping you off in Time Square in New York, and then having the car go park itself, by the end of next year [2017],” he said on a press call today. “Without the need for a single touch, including the charger.”
No, it's taken much longer than that. But Musk is far closer to this goal than anyone else.
Other solutions rely on geo-fenced known areas, LIDAR sensors (which will never understand the whole picture e.g. coloured traffic lights), and non-generalised AI. What Tesla is shooting for is much more ambitious, and much more likely to succeed in my opinion.
Why be pedantic about forward-looking announcements, rather than celebrating the incredible things Tesla AI has acheived so far (and continues to acheive)? The cars can now navigate competently through city streets. That was sci-fi just a few years ago.
I can't deny the cheerleading factor, for sure. But we also know there's a LOT of hot air in this company. The question is, does that hot air get replaced with quality, or does the thing deflate? Time will tell.
A little over ten years ago they sold fewer cars than Rolls Royce. Today they sell more cars than Volvo, and they are profitable. That's objectively successful.
That they were arguably the main reason why every other carmaker is transitioning to electric cars is subjectively (to me) a far greater success. The transition is past the point of no return even if Tesla were to disappear tomorrow,
That is very fair. I definitely agree if Tesla turns out to be some kind of failure in other regards, it gets credit for "forcing a change in the game."
Teslas have very little different from other electric cars, when it comes exclusively to hardware. The difference is the software, which, no, you can’t take apart, and given that “FSD will be here any day” for many years now (and also kills people), I’m not convinced there isn’t fuckery happening there either.
Where is the slander, and where is the car to compare?
I see you went to my profile to find something to say to me, but nothing to expand on your opinion so we can objectively compare better cars as you suggested originally.
And yes that's why I put that quote in my profile, people will go after the person when they don't want to defend their statements, like you did.
Curious if you have much success with being aggressive and condescending in conversations? I wouldn't even bother discussing anything with you but I saw there are enough answers in the parent comment... so you can read and flamebait there :0)
BYD sold more cars in H122 than Tesla. Elon Stan detected.
Zeekr, a Chinese brand goes 621 miles, or 1,000 kilometers, on a single charge. More than the models that now lead the U.S. market in battery range: the Lucid Air, with 520 miles, and the Tesla Model S, with 405 miles.
Tesla (to their credit!) took advantage of an unserved opportunity, including heavy government subsidization, to build electric cars. And they fucking did it.
However, I strongly doubt they will succeed going forward. They are in the midst of a wave of competition from Porsche, Mercedes, GM, Ford, VW, Kia, etc; across all segments of the market. They have failed to deliver on self-driving, and have a 0% chance of success moving forward (as admitted by pulling their lidar sensors out). They still aren't particularly good at fit/finish/quality of their cars.
And finally, Tesla (imo) desperately needs a ceo who thinks about little more than threading the needle on the narrow success path moving forward. Instead, they have someone busy breaking Twitter.
So, is Tesla objectively successful? I'd say no, because I don't think it's clear they will be a live company in 10 years. I think a huge amount of their success came from being the only company that sold a non-shitty electric car, and now that competitive umbrella is gone, they're likely to fail.
Of course anything can happen in the long run, but right now it sells products that millions of people love and is a public company that employs 1000s of people — that's already a pretty high bar to me!
It’s probably safe to assume the truth is mundane. Tesla stock is definitely overvalued (at least it was a few months ago. I haven’t checked recently) and the Tesla brand will likely just become a staple car brand (ala Honda, GM, Ford, Toyota, etc).
Musk isn't doing anything very radical here. It's a leveraged buyout, and he's doing the things private equity firms often do after LBOs, like restructuring and layoffs. Loading up the target company with (apparently) unsustainable levels of debt. The main difference is that he's doing it in days rather than months. His stated goals (create giant global super-service) seems to be at odds with short term changes (turning it into $8chan and driving away users and advertisers).
Leveraged buyouts usually destroy companies, but they tend to do it more slowly while earning from existing customers and with significant less amount of public trolling. Typical leveraged buyout is designed to make you money by selling parts of company, by earning on existing successful products while killing future development etc.
PE's usually try rebranding and introducing new product lines to try to spiff up a distressed property. So far that part of the process is not going that well.
Also, there's not a lot of assets that can be sold off to raise funds. Often LBO targets are seen as worth more in parts than whole, but that's not really the case here.
I believe the main point is the assets (about which I agree with you).
The PE selloff playbook works when the investor is ruthless enough to both (a) load the company with debt and (b) sell off assets that were previously (they believe) not fully valued into the company's share price, like buildings owned by stores.
While Twitter now has significant new debt, it's a small proportion of the purchase price, so there are still tens of billions of dollars that need to be recouped. And Twitter's ONE major asset is its goodwill/entrenchment ... which I'm sure is worth a lot, but which was already priced in to the share price.
Hustle culture, moving fast, breaking things etc are all fine and dandy when you are a new startup and trying to find your niche. But after you get something going and there are many people using your product/service, if you keep moving fast and breaking things, those users will go away.
Twitter users can be more tolerant of some amount of disruption because the service is basically 'cost-free banter among the community'. But if you are doing anything that people depend on, you will kill your business and reputation.
Look at Google. They didn't even 'move fast and break things'. They just 'deprecated' stuff on people's face when a product did not make billions fast enough.
If you subscribe to what Jim Collins called "the genius and a thousand helpers", then it's very possible Musk will be successful where he's currently guiding a thousand helpers. From that perspective, the bigger question is at what point do his other companies fall apart, if he cannot be the genius everywhere?
Actually, when I was there Brin and Page had a reputation for being somewhat brutal, especially Larry. Not in a loud and brash way but in the sense that if they were doing a product review or whatever, and one of them thought your product sucked, they'd just say something like "This sucks, why have you been wasting your time on it?" and feelings be damned. They just didn't really care about cushioning criticism apparently. I actually recall them sort of sarcastically insulting random employees, VPs or even entire projects at TGIF if they were being dumb, overly entitled or underperforming, in the way you'd not really expect ... as if those people worked somewhere totally different.
I don't know anything about Nadella but it's worth noting that he didn't build the company, he's more like a steady pair of hands. Bill Gates on the other hand had a similar reputation to Page and Brin, especially when doing product reviews. If he didn't like something he'd let you know in the bluntest way possible.
So it's not really clear to me to what extent Musk's recent behavior is genuinely abnormal. It may be simply that at the moment relatively few big tech firms are run by founder types. Actually, maybe only Facebook is right now? Others are across the board being run by 'calm' types chosen, one might suspect, for their ability to effectively execute on the foundations laid down by their predecessors.