> Where's your source that they didn't own the brand? The name was taken: https://fortune.com/2018/12/09/tesla-name-faraday-elon-musk/ https://fortune.com/201

> Where's your source that they didn't own the brand? The name was taken: https://fortune.com/2018/12/09/tesla-name-faraday-elon-musk/ https://fortune.com/2018/12/09/tesla-name-faraday-elon-musk/ > I don't understand this argument. It basically says "before they sought funding they didn't have any funding" It was in reference to this: >> The ball was already rolling on Tesla before Elon came along though. In what way do you think "the ball was rolling" before Elon came along? > 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. In other words, Tesla as we know it today, is due to Elon. > 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. Well, I suppose he was clearly in charge of it, Kind of like Steve Jobs for the iPhone. Unlike Steve, though, Elon has a technical (physics) education and a background as a developer, so he had the ability to drill into more details than Steve. > Billionaires make effective CEOs is the argument here? Effective CEO's tend to become Billionaires, especially if they're owners/founders. Musk has done so twice, at the same time, in Tesla and SpaceX, while also playing a key role in the creation of several other companies. And this empire was built from essentially nothing (a few thousand dollars from his father at some point). It's not like Musk was born a billionaire. Eberhard has far less to show for.