4 ms·

The ball was already rolling on Tesla before Elon came along though. He was the majority of their first funding round but their company structure and developmen

The ball was already rolling on Tesla before Elon came along though. He was the majority of their first funding round but their company structure and development of a concept car was already underway. He just saw the opportunity that others were already working on and funded it, then stepped in, pushed the original founders out, and claimed it was his idea in the first place until he and the company settled a lawsuit in 2009. SpaceX was truly his and he found great people to lead the company judging by their results. Contrary to your statement though, space travel wasn't dead at all. During the early SpaceX era when they launched zero rockets there were still a number of successful missions from organizations around the globe as well as routine commercial satellite launches. The key thing SpaceX did was cheapen launch costs to the point where existing launch companies had to start competing. This is down to the engineering achievements at SpaceX. Musk is a face for businesses but if I were an investor in those other two ventures I'd definitely be concerned that this focus on Twitter is distracting him from his actual important work at those other companies, and I'd probably be pissed about what he's done to the share price of Telsa.

hnhg 4y ago
Musk had some pretty influential backing before he even founded SpaceX. From Wikipedia: "In 2002, Griffin was President and COO of In-Q-Tel, a private enterprise funded by the CIA to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests. During this time, he met entrepreneur Elon Musk and accompanied him on a trip to Russia where they attempted to purchase ICBMs. The unsuccessful trip is credited as directly leading to the formation of SpaceX.[11] Griffin was an early advocate for Musk calling him a potential “Henry Ford for the rocket industry".[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin
chris222 4y ago
This is false. You should check the records as to what Tesla was before Musk and JB Straubel came on board, it wasn’t much. I highly doubt the company would have survived past the Roadster.
hoseja 4y ago
There were dime a dozen garage companies hand-crafting electric cars. None of them challenged the industry, none of them would.
trashtester 4y ago
> The ball was already rolling on Tesla before Elon came along though. You clearly have different sources from me (which are primarily Wikipedia). My understanding was that Tesla did not have: - Ownership of the Tesla brand - Any real funding. During the Series A founding in 2004, Elon contributed $6.5M / $7.5 total. - An actual car. During the development of the Roadster, Elon was both Chairman and Architect/CTO. - Employees, beyond Eberhard and Tarpenning. Before Elon, Tesla seems to have been only one of many early stage electric car startups with poor prospects for their future. As for the developments around 2008, it becomes speculation who is telling the more true story between Musk and Eberhard. But as for what both have achieved elsewhere, it seems to me that Musk is also more effective as CEO. Maybe you have sources that can contradict the above.
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  You cite several bullet points that are directly contradicted by Wikipedia itself, when saying Wikipedia is your source: - Ownership of the Tesla brand vs Wikipedia[1]: Tesla was founded (as Tesla Motors) on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in San Carlos, California. Where's your source that they didn't own the brand? - Employees, beyond Eberhard and Tarpenning. vs Wikipedia[1]: Ian Wright was the third employee, joining a few months later.[2] The three went looking for venture capital (VC) funding in January 2004[2] and connected with Elon Musk, who contributed US$6.5 million of the initial (Series A) US$7.5 million[10] round of investment in February 2004 and became chairman of the board of directors.[2] Musk then appointed Eberhard as the CEO. I'd like to say, this is just a strange thing to suggest is negative in the tech space; there's loads of companies that start off as a small group of people (or even solo) and grow once they have investment - Any real funding. During the Series A founding in 2004, Elon contributed $6.5M / $7.5 total. - An actual car. During the development of the Roadster, Elon was both Chairman and Architect/CTO. I don't understand this argument. It basically says "before they sought funding they didn't have any funding", which is incredibly obvious and not a point? Was there something more you wanted to say here? Yeah, he was the money guy who invested in an existing company, which kind of reinforces the point that it was an existing company with something worth investing in *because he did and then he took the reins on direction*. Similarly, "before they had funding, they didn't have any vehicles to show for it." A car is not software, to actually build a functioning vehicle takes quite a bit of time. It took Tesla two full years after his investment to demonstrate a prototype Roadster. Musk had left the CEO position when the first Roadsters started shipping. From reading the original founders' thoughts about where they initially wanted to go, it seems that the company was going to be focused on automotive technology, with their cars being largely showcases for their technology, essentially the way Unreal engine used to be sold and the way the Doom games have been showcases for id's engines. They were not really setting out to be a mass-market automaker, is the gist I get from their various interviews. It's very possible that this was because they believed they couldn't disrupt the automotive market, feeling it was too entrenched, and Musk had the money to put that goal within reach. He definitely reset Tesla's aim and the company demonstrated there was money to be made making EVs. He had a big part in it but a lot of the engineering work was courtesy of Lotus' engineering teams[2]. His main contribution appears to have been forcing the team to pursue carbon fiber and pushing them to make custom headlamps that met DOT standards, in spite of costs associated with both. Despite how Wikipedia words it, if you look at the source - [2] below - it makes the following mention about the headlights, for example: Again, Elon pushed us to spend the considerable money necessary to develop custom (and DOT-compliant) headlights to make the front look great. I think when people read in the Wikipedia article: Eberhard acknowledged that Musk was the person who insisted from the beginning on a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer body and that Musk led design of components ranging from the power electronics module to the headlamps and other styling The takeaway is that Elon actually designed the components himself. The wording is vague enough to obscure the types of design involved and to play into the "genius" narrative. From all the sources, it appears that he was a guiding influence on style and basic statements about features and materials, rather than actually sitting down and designing individual components. As to this point: As for the developments around 2008, it becomes speculation who is telling the more true story between Musk and Eberhard. But as for what both have achieved elsewhere, it seems to me that Musk is also more effective as CEO. Billionaires make effective CEOs is the argument here? I mean, probably, yes, unless they inherited their billions. I think before Twitter he had proven himself capable, he did great work with SpaceX and Tesla in his role as CEO. It's important to keep in mind the context here: This is a thread in which FormerBandmate wrote "He is a genius at hardware". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc.#The_beginnings_%E2%80%93_Roadster_and_private_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc.#The_beg... [2]: https://www.tesla.com/blog/lotus-position https://www.tesla.com/blog/lotus-position

hnhg 4y ago

Musk had some pretty influential backing before he even founded SpaceX. From Wikipedia: "In 2002, Griffin was President and COO of In-Q-Tel, a private enterprise funded by the CIA to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests. During this time, he met entrepreneur Elon Musk and accompanied him on a trip to Russia where they attempted to purchase ICBMs. The unsuccessful trip is credited as directly leading to the formation of SpaceX.[11] Griffin was an early advocate for Musk calling him a potential “Henry Ford for the rocket industry".[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin

chris222 4y ago

This is false. You should check the records as to what Tesla was before Musk and JB Straubel came on board, it wasn’t much. I highly doubt the company would have survived past the Roadster.

hoseja 4y ago

There were dime a dozen garage companies hand-crafting electric cars. None of them challenged the industry, none of them would.

trashtester 4y ago

> The ball was already rolling on Tesla before Elon came along though. You clearly have different sources from me (which are primarily Wikipedia). My understanding was that Tesla did not have: - Ownership of the Tesla brand - Any real funding. During the Series A founding in 2004, Elon contributed $6.5M / $7.5 total. - An actual car. During the development of the Roadster, Elon was both Chairman and Architect/CTO. - Employees, beyond Eberhard and Tarpenning. Before Elon, Tesla seems to have been only one of many early stage electric car startups with poor prospects for their future. As for the developments around 2008, it becomes speculation who is telling the more true story between Musk and Eberhard. But as for what both have achieved elsewhere, it seems to me that Musk is also more effective as CEO. Maybe you have sources that can contradict the above.

BeefWellington 4y ago
You cite several bullet points that are directly contradicted by Wikipedia itself, when saying Wikipedia is your source: - Ownership of the Tesla brand vs Wikipedia[1]: Tesla was founded (as Tesla Motors) on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in San Carlos, California. Where's your source that they didn't own the brand? - Employees, beyond Eberhard and Tarpenning. vs Wikipedia[1]: Ian Wright was the third employee, joining a few months later.[2] The three went looking for venture capital (VC) funding in January 2004[2] and connected with Elon Musk, who contributed US$6.5 million of the initial (Series A) US$7.5 million[10] round of investment in February 2004 and became chairman of the board of directors.[2] Musk then appointed Eberhard as the CEO. I'd like to say, this is just a strange thing to suggest is negative in the tech space; there's loads of companies that start off as a small group of people (or even solo) and grow once they have investment - Any real funding. During the Series A founding in 2004, Elon contributed $6.5M / $7.5 total. - An actual car. During the development of the Roadster, Elon was both Chairman and Architect/CTO. I don't understand this argument. It basically says "before they sought funding they didn't have any funding", which is incredibly obvious and not a point? Was there something more you wanted to say here? Yeah, he was the money guy who invested in an existing company, which kind of reinforces the point that it was an existing company with something worth investing in *because he did and then he took the reins on direction*. Similarly, "before they had funding, they didn't have any vehicles to show for it." A car is not software, to actually build a functioning vehicle takes quite a bit of time. It took Tesla two full years after his investment to demonstrate a prototype Roadster. Musk had left the CEO position when the first Roadsters started shipping. From reading the original founders' thoughts about where they initially wanted to go, it seems that the company was going to be focused on automotive technology, with their cars being largely showcases for their technology, essentially the way Unreal engine used to be sold and the way the Doom games have been showcases for id's engines. They were not really setting out to be a mass-market automaker, is the gist I get from their various interviews. It's very possible that this was because they believed they couldn't disrupt the automotive market, feeling it was too entrenched, and Musk had the money to put that goal within reach. He definitely reset Tesla's aim and the company demonstrated there was money to be made making EVs. He had a big part in it but a lot of the engineering work was courtesy of Lotus' engineering teams[2]. His main contribution appears to have been forcing the team to pursue carbon fiber and pushing them to make custom headlamps that met DOT standards, in spite of costs associated with both. Despite how Wikipedia words it, if you look at the source - [2] below - it makes the following mention about the headlights, for example: Again, Elon pushed us to spend the considerable money necessary to develop custom (and DOT-compliant) headlights to make the front look great. I think when people read in the Wikipedia article: Eberhard acknowledged that Musk was the person who insisted from the beginning on a carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer body and that Musk led design of components ranging from the power electronics module to the headlamps and other styling The takeaway is that Elon actually designed the components himself. The wording is vague enough to obscure the types of design involved and to play into the "genius" narrative. From all the sources, it appears that he was a guiding influence on style and basic statements about features and materials, rather than actually sitting down and designing individual components. As to this point: As for the developments around 2008, it becomes speculation who is telling the more true story between Musk and Eberhard. But as for what both have achieved elsewhere, it seems to me that Musk is also more effective as CEO. Billionaires make effective CEOs is the argument here? I mean, probably, yes, unless they inherited their billions. I think before Twitter he had proven himself capable, he did great work with SpaceX and Tesla in his role as CEO. It's important to keep in mind the context here: This is a thread in which FormerBandmate wrote "He is a genius at hardware". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc.#The_beginnings_%E2%80%93_Roadster_and_private_funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc.#The_beg... [2]: https://www.tesla.com/blog/lotus-position https://www.tesla.com/blog/lotus-position