4 ms·

Toyota also had profits of billions of dollars from other lines to back their Hybrid model. Tesla is basically a really big startup, and has nowhere near the c

Toyota also had profits of billions of dollars from other lines to back their Hybrid model. Tesla is basically a really big startup, and has nowhere near the cash reserve to take 6 years to bring the model 3 to market. It it basically get it out NOW, or fold. In 6 years Ford etc. etc. already has a model 3 equivalent for sale and knows how to manufacture. You can't play it so safe in an established market if you want to dive in.

wpietri 9y ago
I don't think it works like that. "Getting it out now" means building a very reliable, high-volume production line. If you rush that, you get an unreliable production line, which unless you just ship garbage, will be a low-volume production line or a very expensive production line. Or both. I understand why "hair-on-fire mode" feels right. One's internal feelings of urgency are matched by dramatic action. The chaos and excitement of red alert gives nobody time for contemplation and lets everyone ignore the uncomfortable feelings that might come from that. But people in that mode make terrible choices, drastically undervaluing the long term. In software, it's especially easy for us. Our products are rarely life critical, people are used to them being flaky, and we can fix things later by shipping new versions. None of these is true about cars. People used to ship garbage anyhow, which is why the US car market in the 70s and 80s was plagued with problems. And why Toyota and others could make such inroads. Tesla should absolutely be taking risks, especially product feature and marketing risks. But taking quality and productivity risks in hopes that they can somehow make it up later strikes me as a terrible idea.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  So to try and bring back to software terms. There can be two reasons for a shaky launch in a software product: 1) An app is solid, has awesome QA... but the environment does not. You need to shake out some networking bugs / load bugs, etc. 2) The app is terrible. Every part of it is broke. needs a total rewrite. To an end user both feel the same, but the expected curve to make it stable is VASTLY different. In theory Tesla has been in the car business for at least a few years. It MAY be closer to 1. Maybe 2 or 3 vendors are 3 months behind schedule in delivering production machines. Which is bad, but not "we are totally screwed" bad. On the other hand, it is insanely ambitious. It totally could be a #2 totally screwed bad. Time will tell.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Or maybe Tesla "has been in the car business for a few years" and, in typical "disruptive" startup fashion, is ignoring lessons learned the hard way over decades. Mostly because, it seems, anything an established company does is wrong as a mater of dogmatic definition.
- rconti 9y ago
  I just don't get the theory being passed around here that if they don't nail the process absolutely right on the first try (okay, third) that it can't improve. What's wrong with improving the process as you go, as Toyota almost certainly did?
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    How serious the problems are will determine if they are 2 month to fix problems or 2 year. If they are 2 year then model3 is in for some trouble.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    The problem is that from what Gassée says, the are behaving in ways that work against Lean-style continuous improvement. It's sort of like saying, "Why can't you just clean this enormously messy code base up one bug at a time?" Sure, you can in theory. But it's a very rare project that does it. Even places that do total rewrites often eventually end up with as big a mess as they had before. Why? Because the real problem is the ideas, relationships, and habits that got them the messy code base in the first place. That is extremely hard to change.

wpietri 9y ago

I don't think it works like that. "Getting it out now" means building a very reliable, high-volume production line. If you rush that, you get an unreliable production line, which unless you just ship garbage, will be a low-volume production line or a very expensive production line. Or both. I understand why "hair-on-fire mode" feels right. One's internal feelings of urgency are matched by dramatic action. The chaos and excitement of red alert gives nobody time for contemplation and lets everyone ignore the uncomfortable feelings that might come from that. But people in that mode make terrible choices, drastically undervaluing the long term. In software, it's especially easy for us. Our products are rarely life critical, people are used to them being flaky, and we can fix things later by shipping new versions. None of these is true about cars. People used to ship garbage anyhow, which is why the US car market in the 70s and 80s was plagued with problems. And why Toyota and others could make such inroads. Tesla should absolutely be taking risks, especially product feature and marketing risks. But taking quality and productivity risks in hopes that they can somehow make it up later strikes me as a terrible idea.

brianwawok 9y ago
So to try and bring back to software terms. There can be two reasons for a shaky launch in a software product: 1) An app is solid, has awesome QA... but the environment does not. You need to shake out some networking bugs / load bugs, etc. 2) The app is terrible. Every part of it is broke. needs a total rewrite. To an end user both feel the same, but the expected curve to make it stable is VASTLY different. In theory Tesla has been in the car business for at least a few years. It MAY be closer to 1. Maybe 2 or 3 vendors are 3 months behind schedule in delivering production machines. Which is bad, but not "we are totally screwed" bad. On the other hand, it is insanely ambitious. It totally could be a #2 totally screwed bad. Time will tell.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Or maybe Tesla "has been in the car business for a few years" and, in typical "disruptive" startup fashion, is ignoring lessons learned the hard way over decades. Mostly because, it seems, anything an established company does is wrong as a mater of dogmatic definition.
rconti 9y ago
I just don't get the theory being passed around here that if they don't nail the process absolutely right on the first try (okay, third) that it can't improve. What's wrong with improving the process as you go, as Toyota almost certainly did?
- brianwawok 9y ago
  How serious the problems are will determine if they are 2 month to fix problems or 2 year. If they are 2 year then model3 is in for some trouble.
- wpietri 9y ago
  The problem is that from what Gassée says, the are behaving in ways that work against Lean-style continuous improvement. It's sort of like saying, "Why can't you just clean this enormously messy code base up one bug at a time?" Sure, you can in theory. But it's a very rare project that does it. Even places that do total rewrites often eventually end up with as big a mess as they had before. Why? Because the real problem is the ideas, relationships, and habits that got them the messy code base in the first place. That is extremely hard to change.