4 ms·

> Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos The Amazon.com e-commerce store, Kindle (category-defining), the Amazon fulfillment network (rivaling UPS/FedEx),

by ke88y 3y ago

> Yes -- once, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos The Amazon.com e-commerce store, Kindle (category-defining), the Amazon fulfillment network (rivaling UPS/FedEx), and of course AWS. That's at least 4 distinct very successful companies. But the way in which one success enabled the next is more obvious, so you don't want to separate them. The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio.

cubefox 3y ago
These things are all part of Amazon, not separate companies. Moreover: > The Amazon.com e-commerce store This was mostly a copy of eBay which used the existing Amazon market dominance. > Kindle (category-defining) Kindle came after the excellent Sony e-book readers. The reason why Kindle was so much more successful was the existing market dominance of Amazon combined with the fact that they used a proprietary Kindle-specific file format to squash the competition. > The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio. SpaceX was not a "second act", except if you count PayPal as his first successful company. SpaceX was founded before Tesla. They do offer a global satellite network which brings Internet to remote areas around the world. That's quite different from a mere "private space program". As for the Gates foundation: This is not a profit driven company, so it is difficult to estimate how successful it is relative to the funds it has. I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. (He definitely did things which people might classify as altruistic, such as paying for Ukraine's Starlink access for several months.)
- ke88y 3y ago
  > not separate companies They literally are separate companies. There's no debate to be had here. Your assertion is just not true. > I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. Gates doesn't fire and forget. He plays an active role in his foundation.

by ke88y 3y ago

cubefox 3y ago

These things are all part of Amazon, not separate companies. Moreover: > The Amazon.com e-commerce store This was mostly a copy of eBay which used the existing Amazon market dominance. > Kindle (category-defining) Kindle came after the excellent Sony e-book readers. The reason why Kindle was so much more successful was the existing market dominance of Amazon combined with the fact that they used a proprietary Kindle-specific file format to squash the competition. > The comparison to Gates is just pathetic -- instead of Twitter and private space programs, his second act has been focused on things like food security, HIV/AIDS, and polio. SpaceX was not a "second act", except if you count PayPal as his first successful company. SpaceX was founded before Tesla. They do offer a global satellite network which brings Internet to remote areas around the world. That's quite different from a mere "private space program". As for the Gates foundation: This is not a profit driven company, so it is difficult to estimate how successful it is relative to the funds it has. I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. (He definitely did things which people might classify as altruistic, such as paying for Ukraine's Starlink access for several months.)

ke88y 3y ago
> not separate companies They literally are separate companies. There's no debate to be had here. Your assertion is just not true. > I was talking about Musk's abilities as a founder and manager, not about altruism. Gates doesn't fire and forget. He plays an active role in his foundation.