Heard the same arguments when Musk tried to get into rockets. He has no experience making rockets.
Then there was the naysaying when Apple was first getting into phones. What does Apple know about phones? How can they possibly compete with the likes of Nokia?
Often industries are disrupted by newcomers who aren't constrained by the thinking of the existing players. Yes, Musk can't violate the laws of physics or economics. But the cost structures of existing players aren't always dictated by the fundamentals, but also by their own organizational baggage and structure. Hence, SpaceX can compete effectively with DoD defense contractors hooked on hugely inefficient government contracts. Is it that Boeing or Lockheed can't things as cheaply, or that SpaceX quality has to suffer? Maybe the way the government dictates things get funded and manufactured leads to inefficiencies, like spreading things around congressional districts.
Likewise, for other car companies, the Big Three in particular, they are somewhat constrained by their existing investments, existing unions, and just plain old conservativism and aversion to risk taking.
So maybe Musk will fail utterly. No pain, no gain I say. He also has a chance of succeeding spectacularly.
Indeed. The article ignores the history of success in the face of comments just like this one.
Example: Many, many naysayers said the idea that Tesla could begin shipping the Model S to customers in 2012 was absurd, that they were naive and didn't understand the complexities of building a vehicle like Detroit does, etc. Well, they just did it.
Before that, everyone said nobody would buy electric vehicles because (a) you can't get them over 100 miles in range, so nobody will want them, and (b) because there is no charging infrastructure. So Tesla just built bigger/better batteries and built a charging infrastructure.
The problem with articles like this is they are just some random guy saying stuff and it doesn't matter to him ultimately if what he is saying is correct.
Agree, Innovation is not going to come from the people who know in and out of it or who are experts in it,
but is from one who comes from outside and questions 'Why we do it like that?'
Besides that, even if he fails I am happy to have lived with someone like him among us.
Every time I see these negative media people pulling the right things down and the wrong things up, I feel these blokes are by design all about increasing entropy (Could be true!). There is no fix for broken media so to speak.
Auto-industry consultant predicts victory for incumbents over silicon valley auto startup. Commenters at startup focused website skeptical. News at 11.
Also, SpaceX iterates stupid fast. How long did we have the Shuttle? The next Falcon 9 rocket already has landing legs on it to test its helium pneumatic pistons in preparation for first-stage return to launch pad.
I think it's hilarious that Edward Niedermeyer links to complaints about mechanical issues on a Tesla forum to prove that Toyota is somehow more reliable or innovative.
He also fails to mention when he's bashing the quality of the Tesla that it was ranked by consumer reports as the best car of 2014. As well as motor trend's car of the year in 2013. The stock might be overpriced, but the Tesla is the only car that has non car enthusiasts talking. My Father in law and my mother, two out of touch folks both wanna get a Tesla and can't stop talking about them. There is serious consumer demand waiting in the wings for a cheaper Tesla.
Just some more media trolling, nothing to see here, folks.
Even if he is were for a "stunning fail", let him fail gloriously and fantastically. It only means he'll be that much better at this next time around.
I'm completely confident in his ability to fail in order to succeed.
IMHO, Musk is a rare entrepreneur because it's obvious he considers all lessons learned, isn't afraid to learn new ones, and carries that wisdom forward into each decision he makes.
I'm a reluctant fan of Musk at very best. I admire his accomplishments, but I wouldn't shed too many tears if he "failed".
With my prejudices being what they are, I'm part of the core target audience for this piece. This piece is, however, an embarrassment even by editorial standards. It consists of sensationalist claims followed by hypothetical straw man arguments("if he thinks x and y then z may happen" - seriously?).
I for one am not totally convinced by all the hype around electric vehicles. Battery capacity has never in the past been able to make gigantic leaps. It has always been slow incremental year-over-year progress. Nothing seems to indicate that situation will change any time soon, but I'd love to be wrong about that because I certainly like the idea of having a car that doesn't need oil changes and all sorts of other routine maintenance that we take as a given with internal combustion engines.
All that being said, Elon Musk is no ordinary entrepreneur and you ignore that at your own peril. I think Wall Street is making a long-term bet that he's going to pull this whole thing off. Has this author not read "The Innovators Dilemma"? This is straight out of the playbook. Capture a small portion of a market largely being neglected by the established players and use it to work into larger and larger pieces of the market, learning and refining as you go.
What's the purpose of articles like this? Sure, you can make a reasoned, persuasive argument that Tesla is overvalued and/or unlikely to succeed spectacularly but this article isn't that. It's simply a spew of vitriol and derisiveness. Was this supposed to be convincing? Musk can't succeed because, well, E.W. Niedermeyer says so?
I've heard the same argument in respect to almost anyone who is successful today.
Saying that Person X will fail because their project/idea is not based in reality is a cliche.
Musk and a lot of other entrepreneurs who can be classified as visionaries, are not bound by reality, simple because reality is bound within the scope of the present. Visionaries aren't concerned with the present.
The article seems like more of negative outlook instead of being based on sound data. It lays more emphasis on "It's not been done before, so it's not possible again". It looks more like the view of a Wall Street skeptic.
Then there was the naysaying when Apple was first getting into phones. What does Apple know about phones? How can they possibly compete with the likes of Nokia?
Often industries are disrupted by newcomers who aren't constrained by the thinking of the existing players. Yes, Musk can't violate the laws of physics or economics. But the cost structures of existing players aren't always dictated by the fundamentals, but also by their own organizational baggage and structure. Hence, SpaceX can compete effectively with DoD defense contractors hooked on hugely inefficient government contracts. Is it that Boeing or Lockheed can't things as cheaply, or that SpaceX quality has to suffer? Maybe the way the government dictates things get funded and manufactured leads to inefficiencies, like spreading things around congressional districts.
Likewise, for other car companies, the Big Three in particular, they are somewhat constrained by their existing investments, existing unions, and just plain old conservativism and aversion to risk taking.
So maybe Musk will fail utterly. No pain, no gain I say. He also has a chance of succeeding spectacularly.