I typically like Elon about 70% of the time, but I need to agree here. I don't quite understand how he suddenly got so much influence.
>I don't quite understand how he suddenly got so much influence.
then you don't know much about him
I've listened to a history podcast about the robber barons and how following the backlash and dismantlement of the Standard oil, industrialist started buying articles, sometime even newspapers to sell their stories, and in the US, it worked wonderfully. You still have the brand "Quaker" that was born at the time, and probably a dozen other, where they manipulated their own famillial history to build an image, and hide the fact that children died in their mine or that they just had 20 redneck strikers killed. It's not as bad today, but building a personal brand by buying puff articles, fondations. Buying goodwill and influence was always present since at least that time (Honestly, Berkshire Hathaway made at least some of its money on WB reputation, so tech billionaires are not the only kind of CEO who do it)
Not as much as he has now: he was famously frustrated by the California state government's Covid lockdown mandates, and was pretty powerless against them. That frustration is probably what led him to buy influence in the Trump campaign,and later administration. Money can take you so far, political power will take you further for imposing your will on others.
The "Shock-and-awe"/blitzkrieg strategy is another force-multiplier. By moving much faster than the bureaucracy and legal system can respond, the question on whether he has the power or authority to do the things he's doing may become moot.
Switching to a side of fellow billionaire politicians was simply a way to be among his own people, with similar levels of empathy for the working class.
>By moving much faster than the bureaucracy and legal system can respond, the question on whether he has the power or authority to do the things he's doing may become moot.
I think long term someone is going to shut down his shenanigans for good. Maybe even Trump himself will throw him under the bus. But I do wonder how deep he can get and what his consequences are. Like, could he simply leak government data to Russia/China and only get away with a fine? He's not military, but Court Mashals have given the death sentence over much more mild causes.
This is a risky strategy if it is later determined that Musk broke laws with DOGE and is arrested and convicted.
I certainly suspect that there were always elements of what he's become that just weren't as publicly apparent.
So what is it that you saw in him that you liked him?
Twitter wrecked his mind. I'm not talking about buying it, I'm talking about being such a heavy user of it.
The average person on the street is smarter than him.
I'm happy with it.
As so often, it's how they treat the women around them that tells you a lot about men.
- hypocrite: free speech only for topics I approve of
- bully: and a school yard style bully at that. Calling people crude names etc. Remember "pedo guy"?
- liar: "full self driving early next year" for how many years in a row?
- reckless: doesn't seem to really care about all the tesla crashes while on auto pilot, giant safety (for others) hazard that is the cybertruck
And this is all before the current political drama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon...
memetics
I do because the Earth would be rid of him and we could maybe have at least 1 slow news day.
7 years ago he called Vernon Unsworth a pedophile. That was enough for me.
Besides that, he’s pissed off the demographics most likely to buy Teslas. It’s not like most Trump voters are buying EVs
The fact that it's worth more than all the other automakers combined.
> the other manufacturers are catching up
Re-read what you wrote, and consider how preposterous it is that automakers founded more than a century ago are now "catching up" to a company that sold its first car in 2008.
But, using pricing fundamentals, can you really justify Tesla’s value anymore than OpenAIs?
to justify this “vapor worth” Tesla would have to sell about 89 billion cars :)
…automakers founded more than century ago…
look-up when BYD was founded…
"Tesla stock price is too high imo"
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 1, 2020
The South Sea Company was also stupendously valuable until it wasn't.
Tesla is not as profitable as Toyota, GM or Volkswagen and their profit is trending down. There is nothing justifying their market cap based on their profit or even 5 year expected profit.
Tesla has made a lot of promises that they haven’t come close to fulfilling and Musk right now is the definition of regulatory capture
There is this weird revisionist history now that Musk is hated to dismiss all Tesla's accomplishments as meaningless. The traditional auto industry would have never embraced EVs to the extent they have if someone did not disrupt the market in a way like Tesla did. That is both impressive and huge net positive for humanity in a way that is an extremely rare achievement for any startup.
This isn't clear to me. Maybe in the US? but in Europe, there should be no new CO2-emitting cars by 2035. There's a global trend to move to EV due to climate change that has little to do with Tesla.
And “disruption” doesn’t mean whet you think it means. Were any of the existing car manufacturers ever threatened by Tesla as far as market share and revenue like what happened to RIM and Nokia in the smart phone space?
Yes, that is why almost all of them started heavily investing in EVs after Tesla proved they were a viable product. You seem to believe that "disruption" can only come from wild financial success. All it means in this context is that they blazed a new trail for others established players to follow.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/03/13/ev-euphoria-is-dead-auto...
> You seem to believe that "disruption" can only come from wild financial success. All it means in this context is that they blazed a new trail for others established players to follow.
That’s not at all what “disruption” means according to “The Innovator’s Dilemma”.
https://duartem.medium.com/summary-of-the-innovators-dilemma...
Also look at “low end disruption” a “sustaining innovation”, “over serving the market”.
Most people who talk about disruption have never read Clay’s books.
> France will end sales of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040 as part of an ambitious plan to meet its targets under the Paris climate accord, Emmanuel Macron’s government has announced.
> The Netherlands has mooted a 2025 ban for diesel and petrol cars, and some federal states in Germany are keen on a 2030 phase-out.
> India, where scores of cities are blighted by dangerous air pollution, is mulling the idea of no longer selling petrol or diesel cars by 2030, and said it wants to introduce electric cars in “a very big way”.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-...
[2] https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/tesla-europe-sales-figures/
>Of Elon Musk’s Tesla, whose ‘mass market’ Model 3 is expected to roll off the production line later this week, Samuelsson [Volvo's chief executive] said: “It’s a tough competitor. But with this decision we are really becoming the second premium car maker in the world which will also be all-electrified.”
The EU followed France. France followed Volvo. Volvo followed Tesla. Tesla was the spark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_F...
I think your narrative is correct in the US, but not in the rest of the world.
I can't say I'm an expert on French automotive sales. It is possible they have always had a small market for EVs going back years, but there clearly was an inflection point that occurred after Tesla had proved there was widespread demand for EVs with 2020 being the first year that EVs made up more than 2% of new car sales in France.[1]
[1] - https://autovista24.autovistagroup.com/news/france-keeping-p...
EVs have been around since the 90s but there was a collective effort to restrict their growth and production.
I am all for it, he took advantage of a program specifically created to be taken advantage of. But I am not sure if it wasn't for the the tax related benefits, carbon emission credits, and the damn HOV lane access Tesla would be here.
But again, amazing! The goal was achieved.
But that doesn’t justify Teslas value. In the words of the AI industry - “there is no moat” around EVs
It is just as meaningless now on HN as it was then on comp.sys.mac.advocacy back then
Unless you have some sort of way to investigate alternate timelines, there is zero evidence of this claim, including the absurd "never" claim. Many of the innovations that made EVs possible -- for instance rapid advances in battery tech along with the computational improvements to go with them -- came from outside the auto industry. And for that matter the automotive industry had been iterating on EV tech for decades before Elon started dumping money to buy himself credibility. The first lithium-ion EV came out in 1998.
The auto industry was getting there. The blip of Tesla had little impact on the overall timeline, and it certainly isn't a "huge net positive" for humanity. It's a barely noticeable nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Elon, in his absolutely desperate need to constantly be The Subject, has a brilliance in choose the inflection point for buying into something. If it's the emerging hot new thing, Elon will appear with big bags of cash demanding that he be acknolwedged as the leader that made it all happen.
Contrast that with Apple, outside of the US and a few other high income countries that is market share may be neglible. But at least it’s taking most of the profit and by far is the most profitable phone maker
The issue isnt that Tesla did stuff. Its that its all historical stuff that doesnt justify its current market price.
If I was to invest in a car company I would want them shipping millions of cars, not a "net positive for humanity" and a couple hundred thousand janky cars.
Tesla shipped 1.2 million of the Model Y alone in 2023, making it the best selling car worldwide. They sell about half as many cars as Ford, at 9x the profit margin.
I wouldn't touch Tesla stock with a 10 foot pole.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-placed-bottom-consumer-repor...
> Consumer Reports‘ annual reliability rankings have been released, and with data from 24 brands and over 300,000 vehicles, Tesla fell near the bottom (19/24) along with Mercedes-Benz, Jeep, Volkswagen, GMC, and Chevrolet. Electric vehicles overall also placed poorly, being the second least reliable category of vehicles. Hybrids/plugin hybrids, especially those from Toyota, were found to be the most reliable.
Also the idea of the “best selling car” is meaningless. That’s like when Apple has “the best selling phone” when other manufacturers like Samsung sell a dozen types of phones.
MacOS was still something like 5% or so of the overall market.
Nissan sold 3.4 million cars in 2023.
Tesla sold 1.81 million that year.
China, who are the big fish in the EV pond, sold 30 million cars in 2023. 4.9 million went overseas.
The Chinese plan? Build your existing car for cheaper and with an EV option.
SAIC\GWM sold 4.6 million cars in 2023. And their EV Ute is shockingly awesome compared to the Cybertruck.
And to make it explicit, I dislike Musk as much as the next guy and I absolutely would not invest in Tesla at this point, but we shouldn't let that bias our view of history.
>Tesla has been objectively a hugely successful investment in terms of performance
But the only thing he cant dance out of is that he is an absolutely impressive showman. I mean even in the emails OpenAI released, he very talked his way into a controlling interest in OpenAI.
I just feel like, heaps of Tesla investors are going to be left holding the bags when the shine wears off.
That said, if I saw a story about Musk wising up a little bit and hiring someone to rejuvenate his PR I would probably spread some money amongst all of his businesses.
The amount of people who try and discredit the insane things he's managed to pull off is fascinating.
I can fully understand peoples hatred of him, but to write off the literal things he has accomplished is such completely revisionist and post truth. Noone in here will like this but he probably qualifies as schumpeters definition of entrepreneur of our century unless he destroys everything in the next time period which isnt zero but a low probability.
You don’t see in the auto industry the type of “disruption” you saw from Apple and the iPhone where everyone jumped on the bandwagon, abandoned their old phones and most of the previous smart phone makers went out of business. While Apple’s market share worldwide isn’t that great, they take most of the profits. Tesla is doing neither.
Presumably the two impressive companies are SpaceX and OpenAI? Or maybe the Boring Company?
Tesla is far from the most profitable automaker and doesn’t even have the largest margins.
Compare thier place in the automaker to say Apple’s place in the phone market
It’s about products coming into the market at the low end that are “good enough” when the current leaders “over serve” the market - “low end disruption”. Examples are PCs -> mainframes, Linux x86 servers -> Unix boxes, digital cameras/phones -> regular cameras and even smart phones to PCs
Surprisingly enough, another facet of the Innovator’s dilemma is that low end disruption partially happens because the companies involved are not vertically integrated like Tesla and each part of the supply chain focuses on optimizing their components and have scale efficiencies because the low end market has more volume.
We see that now with Chinese ODMs in the EV space. We saw that before with x86 PCs vs Macs and to an extent with smart phones. Apple is kind of unique as a vertically integrated company. But even they don’t make their own processors or manufacturer their own devices
>... big event showcasing its autonomous driving tech on Feb. 10, rolling out driver assist features to EVs as low as $10,000.
They also have a funky supercar while the Tesla one we still await: https://youtu.be/6M3QdN43yqI
I’d give him SpaceX, but it definitely did better when he was paying less attention to it.
If he buys OpenAI he will be 100% of the reason I don't use it.
I wouldn't call him a founder precisely because of this, but at the same time they produced, I forget the exact number, but less than 200 individual vehicles before he took over.
The company was seen as a financial disaster, a pipe dream, and a money sink for a very long time, and he did actually make it profitable.
(Although, given he's ranted about the difficulties of being a public company and having to listen to shareholders, I'm not sure how much this happened because of him rather than despite him).
Pretty much mainly on government money - without it, it would've gone bust long ago. Specifically the policies of Obama and those pesk environmentalists he seems to dislike so much.
(The price of batteries is also why, at the time he went for batteries, the zeitgeist was hydrogen).
He took over 5 years in when they already had the Roadster in production and the model S design was largely finalized with the goal of ever cheaper and more mass market cars over time.
The cyber truck’s look and buying solar city were definitely under his leadership, other moves are less clear.
The reports I've seen say Musk took an active role within the company starting in 2004 (Eberhard was asked to leave in 2007), including overseeing Roadster product design from the beginning (but I've not seen citations for this), and was behind the idea of using the sports car to fund the development of mainstream vehicles.
As I understand it, the first Roadster to be delivered was to Musk and in Feb 2008? So between Eberhard and Musk as CEO.
The best I can do for citations is this, but this is Musk writing on Tesla's blog — I would like to say crucially the date stamp is before Eberhard was pushed out in 2007… but the oldest archive copy is 2010 not 2006 when the blog post claims to have been written, and when the guy himself has a trust deficit I think it's worth being open about this discrepancy: https://web.archive.org/web/20100802142703/http://www.teslam...
(I also found this, which doesn't add much, but does show that Musk overpromising and people calling BS is a constant over time: https://web.archive.org/web/20111125032325/http://gigaom.com...)
“In 2009, Eberhard filed a lawsuit against Musk for slander and libel. As per NBC Bay Area, the lawsuit was settled, and as a condition of the settlement, Musk and two other Tesla executives, JB Straubel and Ian Wright, are now allowed to call themselves co-founders, in addition to Eberhard and Tarpenning.”
He had zero involvement for ~1 year, invested some money and then five years later he’s CEO. That’s hardly the definition of founding anything.