I’d give him SpaceX, but it definitely did better when he was paying less attention to 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.
“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.
If he buys OpenAI he will be 100% of the reason I don't use it.
Besides that, he’s pissed off the demographics most likely to buy Teslas. It’s not like most Trump voters are buying EVs
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.
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.
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.
But that doesn’t justify Teslas value. In the words of the AI industry - “there is no moat” around EVs
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.
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.
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.
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…
The South Sea Company was also stupendously valuable until it wasn't.
"Tesla stock price is too high imo"
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 1, 2020
But, using pricing fundamentals, can you really justify Tesla’s value anymore than OpenAIs?
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
>... 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
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
Presumably the two impressive companies are SpaceX and OpenAI? Or maybe the Boring Company?
