> The Tesla Model S has demonstrated that a well made, well designed electric car is far superior to anything else on the road. I think this is a bit of an exa

> The Tesla Model S has demonstrated that a well made, well designed electric car is far superior to anything else on the road. I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. What the Tesla Model S has actually shown is that a startup-designed $100k electric car can be comparable to $100k luxury cars (S-class, 7-series... etc) and that classic car makers got complacent on certain features (like electronic UI elements). Much of what he said is true, or could easily be true, for $100k gasoline cars too! In fact, I think that's enough of an exaggeration for me to question his whole conclusion. He made a good case for why Tesla could be the next big thing, but just like Android popped up against the iPhone, I could see gasoline cars copying many of the advantages—anything that's not a direct result of an electric drive-train. This isn't to say that electric cars won't take over—I think they very well might—but the blog post doesn't make the best case for it. I also really dislike that whole argument style of cherry-picking a "disruptive" innovation that happened to succeed but ignoring all the others that either failed or didn't deliver for decades. You can't generalize the smart-phone's success that easily! It feels like a pernicious case of what poker players call "results oriented thinking"[1], which is something I see a lot in business analysis. [1]: http://www.toppokersites.com/strategy/results-oriented-thinking/ http://www.toppokersites.com/strategy/results-oriented-think...