6 ms·

Sorry, but I have a hard time praising a writer for throwing shade at the most prolific maker in our lifetime.

by pbreit 8y ago

zodiac 8y ago
His prolificity as a maker is orthogonal to the practicality of his proposal and the legality of his statements, the things Matt Levine talks about
- pbreit 8y ago
  But an optimist and a pessimist would come to opposite conclusion based on same evidence. But pessimism generates more clicks.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    What "clicks"? It's Matt Levine. You can't even click on his stuff easily anymore; you have to subscribe to it.
    - pbreit 8y ago
      Don't you find that out _after_ you click?
  - zodiac 8y ago
    For sure, we should be careful of biased reporting and also evaluate Matt's arguments critically. But you seemed to be suggesting that Musk's prolificity somehow means we shouldn't take any criticism against him seriously
adventured 8y ago
Keep in mind a lot of makers, inventors, etc. are not very good at the CEO job. It's probably unlikely that Jony Ive (a truly brilliant designer) would have any business trying to run Apple. James Dyson, a great maker, isn't the CEO of Dyson (and hasn't been since 2001). He's the chief engineer. (see the nice article below that he wrote describing how he had to bring in outside operators once they hit scale [1]) Neither Nikola Tesla nor Edison demonstrated good skill at running businesses. Musk is not a greater maker than those two. You don't want John Carmack running id Software's day to day operations, nor do you want Shigeru Miyamoto running Nintendo. At that level, you want to aggressively focus on what you're best at. Even Henry Ford, who was a decently skilled business operator, was still not the best available option for running the day to day operations of his own company at scale. It's crazy hard to run an extremely large business well, and the level of skill it demands is every bit as rare as the maker-type talent. I happen to agree with this Bloomberg article. What Musk needs is Alan Mulally or the equivalent (a Gwynne Shotwell if you will; an extremely difficult challenge, given the requirement that the person be compatible with Musk): https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-23/how-elon-musk-can-save-tesla-hire-alan-mulally-ford-s-savior https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-23/how-elon-... [1] https://www.inc.com/magazine/201203/burt-helm/how-i-did-it-james-dyson.html https://www.inc.com/magazine/201203/burt-helm/how-i-did-it-j...
- pbreit 8y ago
  Elon has a pretty good track record of CEOing SpaceX (12 years) and Tesla (15 years), two of the most impressive and impactful companies of our generation.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    Tesla has never had a profitable year, yet the company's voting structure requires almost 90% of shareholders outside of Musk to vote to ever oust him. He has even more control of SpaceX, having majority ownership and a super-majority of voting shares. It's virtually impossible to unseat him as CEO, so pointing out that he's CEO doesn't really establish anything about his quality at holding that position.
    - pbreit 8y ago
      That seems like an odd way to evaluate a CEO. I would evaluate more on what the company is able to achieve (yes, I understand Tesla's lack of profitability).
      - tptacek 8y ago
        That's a non-sequitur answer. He's refuting your claim that you can evaluate Musk's ability from his tenure at those two companies, because both are structured such that he can retain control regardless of his performance. He's not providing you with a rubric for evaluating CEOs, but rather pointing out how your own rubric is flawed.
        pbreit 8y ago
        I don't understand. How is his retaining control based on the structure of voting rights related to his job performance?
puranjay 8y ago
The writer has an obligation to critique Musk and his company because it is publicly owned and needs to be held accountable. Your criticism might have been valid if Tesla were a private organization. But it isn't. So it's not.

Sorry, but I have a hard time praising a writer for throwing shade at the most prolific maker in our lifetime.

by pbreit 8y ago

Sorry, but I have a hard time praising a writer for throwing shade at the most prolific maker in our lifetime.

His prolificity as a maker is orthogonal to the practicality of his proposal and the legality of his statements, the things Matt Levine talks about

pbreit 8y ago
But an optimist and a pessimist would come to opposite conclusion based on same evidence. But pessimism generates more clicks.
- tptacek 8y ago
  What "clicks"? It's Matt Levine. You can't even click on his stuff easily anymore; you have to subscribe to it.
  - pbreit 8y ago
    Don't you find that out _after_ you click?
- zodiac 8y ago
  For sure, we should be careful of biased reporting and also evaluate Matt's arguments critically. But you seemed to be suggesting that Musk's prolificity somehow means we shouldn't take any criticism against him seriously

adventured 8y ago

Keep in mind a lot of makers, inventors, etc. are not very good at the CEO job. It's probably unlikely that Jony Ive (a truly brilliant designer) would have any business trying to run Apple. James Dyson, a great maker, isn't the CEO of Dyson (and hasn't been since 2001). He's the chief engineer. (see the nice article below that he wrote describing how he had to bring in outside operators once they hit scale [1]) Neither Nikola Tesla nor Edison demonstrated good skill at running businesses. Musk is not a greater maker than those two. You don't want John Carmack running id Software's day to day operations, nor do you want Shigeru Miyamoto running Nintendo. At that level, you want to aggressively focus on what you're best at. Even Henry Ford, who was a decently skilled business operator, was still not the best available option for running the day to day operations of his own company at scale. It's crazy hard to run an extremely large business well, and the level of skill it demands is every bit as rare as the maker-type talent. I happen to agree with this Bloomberg article. What Musk needs is Alan Mulally or the equivalent (a Gwynne Shotwell if you will; an extremely difficult challenge, given the requirement that the person be compatible with Musk): https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-23/how-elon-musk-can-save-tesla-hire-alan-mulally-ford-s-savior https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-23/how-elon-... [1] https://www.inc.com/magazine/201203/burt-helm/how-i-did-it-james-dyson.html https://www.inc.com/magazine/201203/burt-helm/how-i-did-it-j...

pbreit 8y ago
Elon has a pretty good track record of CEOing SpaceX (12 years) and Tesla (15 years), two of the most impressive and impactful companies of our generation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bdcravens 8y ago
  Tesla has never had a profitable year, yet the company's voting structure requires almost 90% of shareholders outside of Musk to vote to ever oust him. He has even more control of SpaceX, having majority ownership and a super-majority of voting shares. It's virtually impossible to unseat him as CEO, so pointing out that he's CEO doesn't really establish anything about his quality at holding that position.
  - pbreit 8y ago
    That seems like an odd way to evaluate a CEO. I would evaluate more on what the company is able to achieve (yes, I understand Tesla's lack of profitability).
    - tptacek 8y ago
      That's a non-sequitur answer. He's refuting your claim that you can evaluate Musk's ability from his tenure at those two companies, because both are structured such that he can retain control regardless of his performance. He's not providing you with a rubric for evaluating CEOs, but rather pointing out how your own rubric is flawed.
      - pbreit 8y ago
        I don't understand. How is his retaining control based on the structure of voting rights related to his job performance?

puranjay 8y ago

The writer has an obligation to critique Musk and his company because it is publicly owned and needs to be held accountable. Your criticism might have been valid if Tesla were a private organization. But it isn't. So it's not.