4 ms·

> 5 minutes with an expert would have saved them years of learning the lessons everyone already knew. I'm not sure it's fair to make this statement without ack

> 5 minutes with an expert would have saved them years of learning the lessons everyone already knew. I'm not sure it's fair to make this statement without acknowledging the times he's been successful doing precisely what that five minute conversation would have had him avoid. For example: Tesla itself, SpaceX, and PayPal.

lottin 6y ago
Define successful.
- moduspol 6y ago
  I'm not sure the discussion benefits from debating that.
adwn 6y ago
> For example: Tesla itself Bad example: Tesla almost went down the drain during the Model 3 ramp-up because they thought they knew better how to do large-scale car manufacturing than all the other large-scale car manufacturers. Turned out, they didn't, had to rethink and redesign many processes, and had to shift part of the production to hastily erected tents.
- moduspol 6y ago
  The point is that the company wouldn't have been started if he had listened to industry experts. The point was not that the company would never have benefited from other lessons from the industry at any other point.
  - adwn 6y ago
    Tesla's main innovation and unique selling point was "attractive, high-end EVs", and later, "attractive, mass-market EVs". It was never "marginally more efficient mass production of cars". Before SpaceX, there was little to no competition in reusable, cost-efficient rockets. Before Tesla, there was little to no competition in attractive, high-end EVs. That's why they're successful. There was, however, a lot of competition in car mass manufacturing. It was arrogant and misguided of Tesla and Musk to ignore industry knowledge in highly competitive areas.
    - moduspol 6y ago
      Agreed on all points. The lack of competition was itself a reflection of conventional wisdom in those industries, though, which is my point.
    - ricardobeat 6y ago
      I was under the impression the gigafactory is a major factor in being able to deliver cars at the price point Tesla does. A decade later, and other manufacturers are still just starting to catch up in pricing and performance.
      - thomaskcr 6y ago
        This is why Musk gets away with what he does, his fans never know better. The Freemont gigafactory isn't even producing close to as many cars as when it was the NUMMI plant run by GM and Toyota. Tesla's competitive advantage was a willingness to cut corners. Other companies have been testing, developing production processes, building supply chains. You can bet there won't be a Bloomberg model 3 weekly production tracker for their cars since they'll make what they plan, which will actually happen when they say. If you measure performance in 0-60 only, and pricing/efficiency in self reported/marketed EPA range (not actual real world range) then Tesla is definitely ahead.
        ricardobeat 6y ago
        Is there even a point to comparing output? I bet the only thing in common between those factories is the floor space. What I meant is that they are selling a car at $38k that outperforms the competition on range, efficiency, safety, space, performance, tech, driving assists; it includes features like the panoramic roof that cost an arm and a leg as optionals on every other car. So clearly they are doing something different in their manufacturing.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    > that the company wouldn't have been started if he had listened to industry experts _he_? Elon Musk didn't start the company.
    - moduspol 6y ago
      Yes. I think we're all aware what I meant and the ordering of Tesla's early founding and investment history.
      - hobofan 6y ago
        If you are aware of that, then I'm not sure why you would include Tesla in the list of companies, as I don't see how that point would apply there. For SpaceX I'd agree, and with PayPal I don't know enough about it's history.
        moduspol 6y ago
        I don't see a significant difference between founding a company from scratch and buying a fledgling tiny company with a cool name that has accomplished very little, when the significance is the 99% of what happened afterward. And neither does anyone else, really, which is why the detail is mostly ignored in common discussion.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

lottin 6y ago

Define successful.

moduspol 6y ago
I'm not sure the discussion benefits from debating that.

adwn 6y ago

> For example: Tesla itself Bad example: Tesla almost went down the drain during the Model 3 ramp-up because they thought they knew better how to do large-scale car manufacturing than all the other large-scale car manufacturers. Turned out, they didn't, had to rethink and redesign many processes, and had to shift part of the production to hastily erected tents.

moduspol 6y ago
The point is that the company wouldn't have been started if he had listened to industry experts. The point was not that the company would never have benefited from other lessons from the industry at any other point.
- adwn 6y ago
  Tesla's main innovation and unique selling point was "attractive, high-end EVs", and later, "attractive, mass-market EVs". It was never "marginally more efficient mass production of cars". Before SpaceX, there was little to no competition in reusable, cost-efficient rockets. Before Tesla, there was little to no competition in attractive, high-end EVs. That's why they're successful. There was, however, a lot of competition in car mass manufacturing. It was arrogant and misguided of Tesla and Musk to ignore industry knowledge in highly competitive areas.
  - moduspol 6y ago
    Agreed on all points. The lack of competition was itself a reflection of conventional wisdom in those industries, though, which is my point.
  - ricardobeat 6y ago
    I was under the impression the gigafactory is a major factor in being able to deliver cars at the price point Tesla does. A decade later, and other manufacturers are still just starting to catch up in pricing and performance.
    - thomaskcr 6y ago
      This is why Musk gets away with what he does, his fans never know better. The Freemont gigafactory isn't even producing close to as many cars as when it was the NUMMI plant run by GM and Toyota. Tesla's competitive advantage was a willingness to cut corners. Other companies have been testing, developing production processes, building supply chains. You can bet there won't be a Bloomberg model 3 weekly production tracker for their cars since they'll make what they plan, which will actually happen when they say. If you measure performance in 0-60 only, and pricing/efficiency in self reported/marketed EPA range (not actual real world range) then Tesla is definitely ahead.
      - ricardobeat 6y ago
        Is there even a point to comparing output? I bet the only thing in common between those factories is the floor space. What I meant is that they are selling a car at $38k that outperforms the competition on range, efficiency, safety, space, performance, tech, driving assists; it includes features like the panoramic roof that cost an arm and a leg as optionals on every other car. So clearly they are doing something different in their manufacturing.
- hobofan 6y ago
  > that the company wouldn't have been started if he had listened to industry experts _he_? Elon Musk didn't start the company.
  - moduspol 6y ago
    Yes. I think we're all aware what I meant and the ordering of Tesla's early founding and investment history.
    - hobofan 6y ago
      If you are aware of that, then I'm not sure why you would include Tesla in the list of companies, as I don't see how that point would apply there. For SpaceX I'd agree, and with PayPal I don't know enough about it's history.
      - moduspol 6y ago
        I don't see a significant difference between founding a company from scratch and buying a fledgling tiny company with a cool name that has accomplished very little, when the significance is the 99% of what happened afterward. And neither does anyone else, really, which is why the detail is mostly ignored in common discussion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]