21 ms·

I'd hope the company itself would be fine. I really hate this idea of the grand visionary. A good friend of mine who is a mechanical engineer despises Musk. I

• greedo 8y ago
  Musk told Stanton that he had "one of the world's best engineering teams who normally design spaceships and spacesuits working on this thing 24 hours a day."[1] [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-reveals-email-thread-explaining-why-he-built-mini-submarine-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-reveals-email-thre... That took all of 1 minute on Google...
• emodendroket 8y ago
  I said it before, but: ever read War and Peace? I think you could easily adapt Tolstoy's thesis to business: executives are mostly there to ratify the decisions their subordinates made on the spot. Tolstoy stakes out the most extreme position, but I think we could at least say executive control is more attenuated than executives would like to believe.
• stcredzero 8y ago
  Are Apple products different now that Jobs are gone? Yes. Jobs as local despot acted as a curb to bad decisions. Jobs had a vision which acted as a countervailing force to keep Apple from being completely sucked into being a money grubbing luxury goods company. the core people that make and design all their overpriced, planned obsolescence devices are still there, often uncredited, while everyone else likes to focus on the captain of a ship. We know from the historical record that Jobs had quite good judgement, even in technical fields, and we know that he countermanded and convinced executives and managers to steer them in the right direction. I suspect that the Apple of today is descending into being just a money-grubbing luxury goods company.
  • SkyMarshal 8y ago
    I don’t think Apple products are any different without Jobs, the problem is they’re nothing new either. With Jobs you knew he loved and lived technology and was always looking for cool new things to do with it. Most of his product launches did just that and brought some excitement about possibilities. Current Apple products are meticulously, exactingly designed and built, but they’re losing the excitement and expectation of something truly new and original that Jobs brought. That’s the big difference I think a visionary leader can make. Musk is doing the same thing with electric cars and space. Tesla and SpaceX could survive without him for a time, and since they’re very different industries than consumer electronics, maybe even thrive under a Tim Cook-like operator par excellence. But no guarantee.
    • baxtr 8y ago
      Why would you say that for example the Apple Watch is "nothing new"? Or: what is the difference between jumping from an iPhone to an iPad (considered as genius by Jobs) and jumping from a fingerprint ID to a 3D face recognition.
      • Animats 8y ago
        Why would you say that for example the Apple Watch is "nothing new"? Pebble.
        • baxtr 8y ago
          So then the iPhone was nothing new either?
          • stevew20 8y ago
            Affirmative.
            • reanimated 8y ago
              Yes it wasn't new per se, they didn't created first mobile phone with a touchscreen, but you can't deny that this one device single handedly shifted direction of entire industry. Similar things, just not in that scale is happening with watch. In reality no other smartwatch is even close to the Apple Watch. There is no competition. Same as with an iPad or the iPods before that.
• sho_hn 8y ago
  I get what you mean - but Musk isn't always like that. Not like Jobs. If you look at the recent BFR video on the SpaceX channel, early on he gives an update on the technology, and there's a part where he takes much longer than the audience cares for to praise the job SpaceX' propulsion engineering team did on the new engine. And you can very easily tell it's genuine respect and gratitude (probably because he had to be more hands-off due to time constraints), not marketing fluff. He's certainly not above crediting people at his company.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• jiveturkey 8y ago
  > Are Apple products different now that Jobs are gone? The better question would be, would Apple products be what they are today, without Jobs.
  • headgasket 8y ago
    The real question is what Apple products do not exist because Steve is not around anymore.
• qaq 8y ago
  Well let's just put it this way after trying out new MBP I just bought my first non Apple notebook since 2006. I also have 0 intention of buying any iPhone models with notch. On space X a son of a friend who actually works at Space X as eng. mentioned that Musk gets pretty involved on eng. side of things (obviously pretty anecdotal evidence). I also seen many times Musk praising a team at Space X and Tesla so drawing far reaching conclusion from a single interview of a dude who is obviously under a ton of pressure and is physically and mentally exhausted is a bit strange.
• maxxxxx 8y ago
  Totally agree. He makes it sound like he is the guy who figures out all that stuff in his basement. It's hard to imagine that a CEO of two companies that size has the time to do any real engineering. He seems more the type who has good memory and can repeat what the engineered are telling him. My VP is like that. He immediately comprehends and remembers what you tell him but he is not doing any development work.
  • reanimated 8y ago
    So you want to say if you can understand, can discuss with engineer leeds, can make a decision and accept or decline a solutions to the problem which your company is making, you're not involved in the development work?
    • maxxxxx 8y ago
      Not in the sense that he is doing active development work.
      • erikpukinskis 8y ago
        Would you call it passive? You still need to understand all the details. You just didn’t necessarily need to do the grinding on iterations, schematics, math, etc.
• saiya-jin 8y ago
  Sour comment for whatever reason... It's actually pretty simple - imagine the world that is and probably will be with him, and then one without him. We underdogs hate to be not credited for the hard work we do, but his positive impact on mankind as a whole is quite substantial, and as time goes by it will be only magnified. Hard to argue with this. SpaceX and Tesla are really a bit more than just a sum of all the engineers (and other folks) involved. If you like to pick negative things on people, then there are no heroes, there are no ideals to look up to. Every single great person in history had a dark side, like it or not. I guess that's part of what makes us humans. Personally, I like him. With all the warts, emotions and whatnot. Results matter, rest are details for pub discussion after 5th beer. World generally thinks similarly on this topic.
  • bilbo0s 8y ago
    The world with him, is a whole lot like the world without him though. I mean, I did the thought experiment, and I honestly don't see many things that would be different? Are you arguing that without Musk, we wouldn't have commercial space companies, or electric cars? If so, I find that a bit difficult to believe. The part of your comment about no one being a hero is correct. None of us are any better than anyone else, that's for sure. (It's the main reason I try never to point fingers in life actually.) But the idea that we would be worse off without Musk is just a bridge too far. Even a world absent Steve Jobs, would have created PCs and smart phones. And, with respect to impact, Musk is no Steve Jobs.
    • Roritharr 8y ago
      I, living in Germany and having worked with and for our car companies, am completely convinced that without him we wouldn't have the electric shift we're seeing right now. We'd have another two decades of half hearted attempts at all kinds of technologies, especially bio fuels but no real progress. Tesla changed the game and I can only imagine it's the same with SpaceX.
      • blkhawk 8y ago
        And at least 15 Years of "clean diesel" marketing.
• the_rosentotter 8y ago
  > I don't doubt he's capable of doing that with his background Which background is that? He has an undergraduate degree in economics and a bachelor's degree in physics. I respect the guy but he clearly puts a lot into managing his image. As a relevant example, he used to claim to have been in the Ph.D. program at Stanford, but had to retract that (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find that on Google).
  • quenstionsasked 8y ago
    I'm very curious about the Stanford thing. Do you mean that he was never admitted? Or simply that he never officially enrolled? I tried my hand at googling this but found nothing but re-hashes of the same story of how he left after two days.
    • newsDerp 8y ago
      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=elon+musk+stanford http://lmgtfy.com/?q=elon+musk+stanford > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk > He began a Ph.D. in applied physics and material sciences at Stanford University in 1995 but dropped out after two days to pursue an entrepreneurial career.
    • jkqwzsoo 8y ago
      I couldn't find anything either. My guess would be that you aren't technically in the PhD program until you've passed your qualifying exam. Until that point, you're a graduate student but not a PhD student. After you pass your preliminary exam, you're a PhD/Doctoral candidate. Also, it's a moot point. There are no bragging rights to be found in simply being admitted to a PhD program. Plenty of very intelligent people fail to complete a PhD program (usually, IME, because of personality issues/conflict with the advisor (sadly extremely common), inflexibility of the advisor and/or department, or personal reasons (economic, social, health)). (to be clear, Musk didn't brag that he was admitted to Stanford - he suggested that he felt dropping out was more useful than continuing. His fans often hold up being admitted to a PhD program as evidence of his engineering background)
• DennisP 8y ago
  I don't know whether he's using CAD but Musk did learn a lot of rocket science. According to aerospace consultant Jim Cantrell, one of his early hires, Musk essentially memorized several textbooks on rocket science, learned more from experts he talked with, and holds his own in engineering discussions. Sorry for the Business Insider link but this was the best I could google at the moment; Mercury Reader can get around the adwall: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-learned-rocket-science-for-spacex-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-learned-rocket... Of course that team of dedicated experts is also there, and Cantrell points that out too. I'm just pointing out that Musk really does do engineering. Edit: Here's a Quora post by Cantrell. https://www.quora.com/How-did-Elon-Musk-learn-enough-about-rockets-to-create-and-run-SpaceX/answer/Jim-Cantrell https://www.quora.com/How-did-Elon-Musk-learn-enough-about-r...
  • shanghaiaway 8y ago
    Musk does not do any engineering at all.
    • DennisP 8y ago
      I posted a source. Can you?
      • kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
        He's more knowledgeable than the prototypical PHB. However, engineering work requires some form of design analysis (ultimately numerical) to prove that the end result will most likely function. He hasn't done that and no book smarts will instantly make you an engineer. He doesn't need to do that either and is just as important an asset by being a well-informed manager.
      • mhermher 8y ago
        You just said that Musk memorized several textbooks... Idk what kind of source can bail you out of that one. Probably discredits the source if anything.
      • 8y ago
• pastor_elm 8y ago
  >but not once did he say, "Well I have an amazing team of engineers" and credit all the thousands of people in his organizations that actually do the work. Engineers are a dime a dozen. They are responsible for the success of these companies in the same way cells are responsible for the formation of a human being. Why couldn't all those engineers build a cost effective reusable rocket system before Musk came along? Or how about an electric car that could go 400 miles on a battery charge?
  • krapp 8y ago
    >They are responsible for the success of these companies in the same way cells are responsible for the formation of a human being. So... entirely responsible?
    • pastor_elm 8y ago
      Yo missed my point. Nobody walks around thanking their skin cells for existing.
      • krapp 8y ago
        Your point seemed to be that engineers are "a dime a dozen," yet I doubt any "dime-a-dozen" engineer or group of engineers could have accomplished what Tesla's or SpaceX's engineers have. But let's answer a question you posed in your comment: Why couldn't all those engineers build a cost effective reusable rocket system before Musk came along? Or how about an electric car that could go 400 miles on a battery charge? They could have, because obviously, they did. Their collective expertise is what made that possible. Elon Musk didn't just draw up all the plans and send it to them to make happen. Elon Musk, however, could never in a million years have done it alone. So I didn't miss your point, I disregarded it. Those dime a dozen engineers are far more important than Elon. > Nobody walks around thanking their skin cells for existing. Well, skin cells are not human beings, so comparing human beings to skin cells is... disturbing at best.
        • sho_hn 8y ago
• datavirtue 8y ago
  The engineers created the iPhone and had to beg Jobs to fund the product launch. Well documented.
  • repolfx 8y ago
    Really? Where can I read about this? What I recall is that Jobs tasked Apple to create a phone and had a bake-off between the iPod guy (Tony something) and Federighi, and the iPod side of the firm created a device with a click wheel, Federighi's team created a device with a touch screen and Jobs made the call to go with the touch screen. It'd be weird if it went from that to Jobs having to be begged to launch it, especially as it was clearly awesome and Jobs himself had been so deeply involved in the design.
• AcerbicZero 8y ago
  My take from the Joe Rogan interview was that Elon is preoccupied/passionate when it comes to technology and engineering. Not pointing out that he obviously has a great team doesn't seem like much of an oversight to me. He didn't attempt to hide behind a facade, playing the super-CEO role, full of faux self deprecation and verbal gold stars for his team. Perhaps I'm a little more generous in my interpretation of the interview, but to me, he just seemed like an awkward guy, who wanted to work on engineering cool stuff.
  • hawkice 8y ago
    I suppose the unfortunate thing is, that isn't his role. He can still do engineering work when he has the time, but me, the SEC, and most other humans understand the CEO of a public company has actual responsibility towards operations. Part of that means, he might not being doing his job great if he works his employees 90 hours a week and pretends they don't exist when he wants to brag on the radio. Being kind and generous with well deserved praise costs nothing and actually benefits both the company and the humans making the company work.
• ubernostrum 8y ago
  I really hate this idea of the grand visionary. Which is amusing in the case of Musk. As I've said over and over, his approach is to find an industry where most or all of the hard, expensive fundamental R&D has already been done (and paid for) by someone else, and then start a company to incrementally improve it and promise vast cost reductions from economies of scale. That's what SpaceX is. That's what Tesla is. There's not really staggering heart-breaking Copernican-revolution work being done at either company. They're just applying incremental improvement and economies of scale to problems where the hard fundamental work was already done. The idea that it requires some special sort of unbelievable genius to come up with that plan, or that it's impossible to do without this specific (alleged) genius, is baffling to me.
  • dnautics 8y ago
    I think also he's applying many forms of incremental improvement all at once, and also in a field where the other players are stultified. To some degree, you could say the same criticisms about Linus Torvalds (or, say, Rob Pike).
  • api 8y ago
    He does what any good businessman would do. He looks for money on the table. In this case its areas where research has been done but it hasn't been operationalized. That being said I dont mean to minimize what Musk or the teams he has assembled have done. The first 90% of the work toward a new innovation is 90% of the work, then the last 10% is 90% of the work. SpaceX basically finished the Delta Clipper project.
    • mellow-lake-day 8y ago
      A businessman who actually wants to make money wouldn't start a rocket company. The return on rocket companies is nil.
  • resu_nimda 8y ago
    What is baffling to me is the length that some HN commenters will go to to tear down people like Elon and Steve Jobs. Maybe you don't like him, maybe you don't like how much attention and praise he gets. But to be so dismissive of what those companies have accomplished with him at the helm, to me is just unwarranted bitter negativity. In your mind, what companies are doing staggering heart-breaking Copernican-revolution work? What bar must be reached to not be "just applying incremental improvement and economies of scale?" Pretty bleak outlook if pushing the bleeding edge of rocket technology forward is humdrum small potatoes.
• iamcreasy 8y ago
  > but not once did he say, "Well I have an amazing team of engineers" and credit all the thousands of people in his organizations that actually do the work. He says it all-the-time. And sometimes without any prompt.
• Symmetry 8y ago
  Well, to quote Mueller: >It’s really— it’s quite a trip, working for Elon. It’s different every day [laughter] because it all depends on what mood he’s in [laughter] — they think he’s joking> You know, he’s been in a great mood lately; we’ve been very successful, and Tesla’s been doing quite well. So it’s been good recently. Um, he still; he’s still extremely demanding. One thing I tell people often is that— I’ve seen this happen quite a few times in the fifteen years I’ve worked for him. We’ll have, you know, a group of people sitting in a room, making a key decision. And everybody in that room will say, you know, basically, “We need to turn left,” and Elon will say “No, we’re gonna turn right.” You know, to put it in a metaphor. And that’s how he thinks. He’s like, “You guys are taking the easy way out; we need to take the hard way.” >And, uh, I’ve seen that hurt us before, I’ve seen that fail, but I’ve also seen— where nobody thought it would work— it was the right decision. It was the harder way to do it, but in the end, it was the right thing. One of the things that we did with the Merlin 1D was; he kept complaining— I talked earlier about how expensive the engine was. [inaudible] [I said,] “[the] only way is to get rid of all these valves. Because that’s what’s really driving the complexity and cost.” And how can you do that? And I said, “Well, on smaller engines, we’d go face-shutoff, but nobody’s done it on a really large engine. It’ll be really difficult.” And he said, “We need to do face-shutoff. Explain how that works?” So I drew it up, did some, you know, sketches, and said “here’s what we’d do,” and he said “That’s what we need to do.” And I advised him against it; I said it’s going to be too hard to do, and it’s not going to save that much. But he made the decision that we were going to do face-shutoff. >So we went and developed that engine; and it was hard. We blew up a lot of hardware. And we tried probably tried a hundred different combinations to make it work; but we made it work. I still have the original sketch I did; I think it was— what was it, Christmas 2011, when I did that sketch? And it’s changed quite a bit from that original sketch, but it was pretty scary for me, knowing how that hardware worked, but by going face-shutoff, we got rid of the main valves, we got rid of the sequencing computer; basically, you spin the pumps and pressure comes up, the pressure opens the main injector, lets the oxygen go first, and then the fuel comes in. So all you gotta time is the ignitor fluid. So if you have the ignitor fluid going, it’ll light, and it’s not going to hard start. That got rid of the problem we had where you have two valves; the oxygen valve and the fuel valve. The oxygen valve is very cold and very stiff; it doesn’t want to move. And it’s the one you want open first. If you relieve the fuel, it’s what’s called a hard start. In fact, we have an old saying that says, “[inaudible][When you start a rocket engine, a thousand things could happen, and only one of those is good]“, and by having sequencing correctly, you can get rid of about 900 of those bad things, we made these engine very reliable, got rid of a lot of mass, and got rid of a lot of costs. And it was the right thing to do. >And now we have the lowest-cost, most reliable engines in the world. And it was basically because of that decision, to go to do that. So that’s one of the examples of Elon just really pushing— he always says we need to push to the limits of physics.
• oysterfish 8y ago
  > He made it sound like he just constantly engineers things, but I find it hard to believe that at any point he's sitting down with CAD and fluid dynamic applications and mapping out experiments for rocket prototypes. Ah. That's where you're getting it wrong. He's hired a bunch of people to do deal with the noise, so he can focus on the signal. Yup.
• gammateam 8y ago
  The company won't be fine because it'll be trading at $20 per share. (Yes, $20 is hyperbole, now read the rest) The real issue will be the 2019 bondholder covenants. Tesla won't have the cash to pay them, Tesla won't have the buying interest to absorb dilution, and Tesla will still need money. Basically with a lower and lower share price Tesla has fewer and fewer ways to service its debt and do further fundraising. They can, it just won't be good for shareholders. This is called a death spiral. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deathspiral.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deathspiral.asp For a healthy company, a low share price has nothing to do with anything. For example, Tesla without debt and positive revenues would be a healthy company at $20 per share, it would even be undervalued and hurray you are the only person that noticed! But thats not the case for Tesla. Tesla is not a healthy company. And its going to become toxic.
  • hef19898 8y ago
    Seems to be the underlying reasoning of a lot of short sellers, doesn't it?
  • wbl 8y ago
    Then the bondowners end up restructuring and owning a valuable company.
    • vinceguidry 8y ago
      Tesla would almost assuredly not be a fraction as valuable with bondholders running it as they would with Musk at the helm. The company's fortunes are inextricably bound up with the founder. The only thing the bondholders are likely to do with the business if they find themselves owning it outright is liquidate. A fact that is quite likely being taken into account in the current market brinksmanship imbroglio.
  • sergiosgc 8y ago
    Tesla's debt servicing cost 600 million yearly (Bill Cunningham estimates). It is producing Model 3s at a pace of 4k weekly (according to Bloomberg). Each represents 15kUSD in gross profit (according to Munro). It takes ten weeks to service the yearly debt using current Model 3 sales. If these numbers are right, once Tesla proved to be able to produce Model 3s, it became financially stable. It will easily be able to roll-over bonds.
• throwaway0255 8y ago
  > I really hate this idea of the grand visionary. ... I listened to a bit of his Joe Regan interview and when Regan asked him how he has the time to do all of the things he does, there are smoke jokes about him being an alien, but not once did he say, "Well I have an amazing team of engineers" and credit all the thousands of people in his organizations that actually do the work. I think Elon's active perpetuation of the myth is kind of a red herring. Promoting Elon Musk as a grand visionary is how Tesla will maximize its brand value, and contribute to a self-sustaining lore around their founder 50 years from now. It's the same story for Apple and Steve Jobs, and thousands of other companies (tech and otherwise). People aren't capable of idolizing 200 mechanical engineers. They are very capable of idolizing a single visionary. A story with 200 protagonists would be far less compelling, which is why most stories only have 1. If you want to be as competitive as possible, and you have a leader capable of exploiting that aspect of human nature, then that's what your company should do. Permitting and perpetuating this kind of myth-making is practically part of Elon's fiduciary duty to his shareholders at this point. You can't fault him for doing it, because he has to. I think what's really at issue is the aspect of human nature that it's exploiting. I think it's closely tied to hierarchy and pecking order instincts observed in all mammals. We always need to be identifying and reacting to an alpha, and using that to inform our choices and behaviors so we can stay competitive on a biological level. The same instinct might also be what causes people to immediately perceive this as an issue of Elon's individual behavior, and makes them feel so strongly about it.
  • GW150914 8y ago
    Permitting and perpetuating this kind of myth-making is practically part of Elon's fiduciary duty to his shareholders at this point. You can't fault him for doing it, because he has to. Plus he clearly lives for it, and when anyone makes even reasonable points against him, he loses his mind on a Twitter. That is after all what happened with “pedo guy” re the Thai cave rescue. Musk made an ass of himself by trying to inject himself into a potential tragedy for some PR and a man who actually helped to save the day called him on it. I’m also not sure that it would be hard to idolize a group, people manage it for sports teams. Maybe if Musk put the effort he spends into grooming his ego into promoting his team he wouldn’t need to be the center of a cult of e-sychophants.
• guiomie 8y ago
  I was thinking the same when I listened to Joe Rogan podcast. And the topic came up multiple times where he could have said he has a great team to support him. I was really disappointed in Musk.
• sizzle 8y ago
  Are Apple products different now that Jobs are gone? https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-desi...
• anon_spx 8y ago
  I work for the guy, and I don't think anyone who has worked closely with him would believe that SpaceX or Tesla would be anywhere near what they are without him. He is an extraordinary leader who is deeply involved with all of the engineering decisions that happen at both companies. You'd be very surprised at how much impact he has on fairly low level decisions.
  • hef19898 8y ago
    There is a phase in every company when that is a crucial thing to have, the earlier in a companies life cycle the more important it is. And then comes the point where such deep involvement of the CEO / founder is less important and even turns into a liability at one point. At least for Tesla, I have the impression that this is, indeed, becoming a liability at the moment. When the very top has a measurable impact on low level discisions it is a) eating up attention from the top level b) delaying even small decisions waiting for top level involvement and c) carrying the risk of bad decisions as the top level is, by definition, missing the detailed knowledge necessary for the majority of low level decisions. Not even to speak what that does to innovation and the flow of ideas and corporate culture in the long run. Other famous examples of where this can end are VW and, at a smaller seriousness level, Bezo's deep involvement with the Fire phone. Automotive mass production is, from a certain perspective, more complex than launching stuff to space. It is also a very well understood domain, first and foremost from established car manufacturers. So it would have made sense to also memorize some books covering that topic and than getting experts onboard. It doesn't help that an EV is less complex to build compared to traditional cars, so in that regard traditional manufacturers actually do have an advantage. I don't remember when he said it exactly (I think around the time Tesla bought this German manufacturing equipment supplier), but Musk stating that he also wants to revolutionize the way cars are manufactured. Why would you do that when your primary goal, one you are on very good track to accomplish, is revolutionizing mobility?
• api 8y ago
  If Musk never happened rockets would still be expendable, the US would still lack a Shuttle replacement, and EVs would be rare or nonexistent. We would still be talking about how personal mobility is doomed when oil is depleted, if not all of modern civilization. Prove me wrong. Who else was doing this stuff before SpaceX and Tesla? On space launch you had nothing serious except the SLS which is 70s tech. On EVs you had a few boutique and niche vehicles but nothing pushing to break into any mass market. I doubt conventional car companies would ever have done it without a law to force them or monster incentives since most of that industry is full of ICE heads who hate EVs. They are now, but that's because of Tesla. I'm worried that if Tesla fails all these other EV projects will be scaled back since the ICE and oil crowd will leap on it to push an EVs have failed narrative. Elon seems to have fucked up with this one, but I dont think it diminishes what he has accomplished. Normally the only way to smash a mediocre Nash equilibrium is with the power of government-- either big government spending or legislation (regulation, anti trust, etc). It's normally the only hammer big enough. I have a lot of respect for anyone in the private sector who is able to pull it off. Musk and the teams he assembled broke two. That's just insane. Hell maybe it is literally insane. Maybe he's nuts.
  • hef19898 8y ago
    A agree wizh you on the Tesla part, there Musk really forced very positive development. One could argue of course if that development wouldn't have taken place as well without Tesla. But even then it is clear that Musk / Tesla moved things along a lot faster. SpaceX is an incredible achievement. The reusable rockets are a point I really need to dig deeper into, especially the financial aspects of it. Because there a pretty convincing argument is that peivate SpaceX launches are subsidized by government launches. I really have to go hunting for some numbers there more I think about it. And even then, building competitive rockets, not just one, in a private endevour is incredible. I'm just wondering if Musk is not getting to much credit and hype. Not that he would need it, even the smallest common ground regarding Musk's achievements is more than enough for a lifetime. Unless he throwing all of it away over some paranoid obsession about short sellers and a loose Twitter finger...
    • api 8y ago
• kamaal 8y ago
  >>A good friend of mine who is a mechanical engineer despises Musk. A lot of people despise Musk. Its because the society in general hates these kind of successful non-conformist. No one likes to see a hugely successful anti-pattern to their whole life.
  • wilsonnb3 8y ago
    > Its because the society in general hates these kind of successful non-conformist. No one likes to see a hugely successful anti-pattern to their whole life. This is just wrong. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Musk that have nothing to do with him being a "successful noncomforist", whatever that means.
• ramblerman 8y ago
  Of course he has an amazing team of engineers. But if Mush hadn't been born, they would have never come together to create Tesla.
  • dingaling 8y ago
    > they would have never come together to create Tesla. They already did, since Tesla predates Mr Musk's involvement
• mlazos 8y ago
  I think that Apple products have gotten noticeably buggier since Jobs has gone, I honestly think the horror of getting a 3am call from him about your feature was a legitimate fear engineers had at Apple and drove quality up. Not advocating for that work environment but I definitely think it had an effect.
• mscasts 8y ago
  Totally agree with the sentiment. I don't despise Musk, I rather like him a lot for all of his work. BUT I also thought it was weird that, in the podcast, he didn't mention and never has mentioned (of all the appearances I've seen) the entire team of people helping him to the success. Specially in the podcast, because one question that was repeated several times by Joe was like "how do you manage to do all the stuff you do?". I do not like this way of portraying one guy as some sort of alien that does all this when in reality he does very little if you compare it to the work that is done by his employees. Leadership that goes in the direction that Musk does is really good and very valuable but it's not what creates actual worth.
• andrepd 8y ago
  I'm in the same camp. I'm going to be happy if at the end of this we've managed to get a better (cleaner, safer, more reliable, cheaper) car or a better rocket or whatever, but I don't buy the whole "rocket jesus" worshipping, like I don't buy the whole guru worshipping in startup culture in general.
  • erikpukinskis 8y ago
    I don’t understand what’s so unusual that there would be Jesuses walking around. Like a billion people are trying to imitate Jesus. Also we have the benefit of centuries of reflection in his teachings. I would expect there to be dozens of Jesuses. Rocket Jesus. Pizza Jesus. Star Wars Jesus. Etc.
• ouid 8y ago
  >Are Apple products different now that Jobs are gone? Air pods.