Bad example: Tesla almost went down the drain during the Model 3 ramp-up because they thought they knew better how to do large-scale car manufacturing than all the other large-scale car manufacturers. Turned out, they didn't, had to rethink and redesign many processes, and had to shift part of the production to hastily erected tents.
The point was not that the company would never have benefited from other lessons from the industry at any other point.
Before SpaceX, there was little to no competition in reusable, cost-efficient rockets. Before Tesla, there was little to no competition in attractive, high-end EVs. That's why they're successful. There was, however, a lot of competition in car mass manufacturing. It was arrogant and misguided of Tesla and Musk to ignore industry knowledge in highly competitive areas.
The lack of competition was itself a reflection of conventional wisdom in those industries, though, which is my point.
Tesla's competitive advantage was a willingness to cut corners. Other companies have been testing, developing production processes, building supply chains. You can bet there won't be a Bloomberg model 3 weekly production tracker for their cars since they'll make what they plan, which will actually happen when they say.
If you measure performance in 0-60 only, and pricing/efficiency in self reported/marketed EPA range (not actual real world range) then Tesla is definitely ahead.
What I meant is that they are selling a car at $38k that outperforms the competition on range, efficiency, safety, space, performance, tech, driving assists; it includes features like the panoramic roof that cost an arm and a leg as optionals on every other car. So clearly they are doing something different in their manufacturing.
_he_? Elon Musk didn't start the company.
And neither does anyone else, really, which is why the detail is mostly ignored in common discussion.