If you look at SpaceX competitors nobody would recognize Dennis Muilenburg, the CEO of Boeing at the street either.
The difference between SpaceX isn’t just the work of engineers. It’s also that the company structure is completely different. Boeing uses a lot of bespoke parts that are created by
The iPhone didn’t succeed because it was technically superior but because Steve Jobs had the vision for a touch-based phone operation system with no stylus and only one button.
Microsoft did much better under Bill Gates (who articulated a public vision) than under Steve Ballmer who wasn’t a guy who focused on a vision.
If you look at SpaceX competitors nobody would recognize Dennis Muilenburg, the CEO of Boeing at the street either.
Checks out , always thought Boeing was a serious company in fact they don’t to rely on cult of personality , corporate cult or massive PR
So did you just say this is something americans really want (at least for consumer product) ? Some megalomaniac narcissist with massive conflict of interest using PR and cult of personality to try and forcefully push down their throats a product they don’t really need using a cool video presentation in a basketball arena? That would explain a lot because I remember the first iPhone quite well and it was terrible , no 3G , no support for 3rd party apps no GPS....while direct competitors like Palm , NokiaN95 and PocketPC all had such things , in fact I recall that when one friend of mine bought the first iPhone I was quite excited to see what it could do to live up to the hype that preceded it’s launch...turns out my 2005 PocketPC (incidentally Ballmer era) could do the exact same things.
public vision
Honestly this just seems a PR strategy to conceal the truth form the public’s eyes .The relationship between a company and it’s clients or the general public (if a consumer product) is ALWAYS adversarial , every tactic employed to conceal this reality (excessive PR , cult of personality , corporate cult , CEO media appearances ) is only adopted to increase margins or create a situation where executives and CEOs would be able to get away with stuff , they would not be able to get away with otherwise.
That’s why people should not buy into this and always keep their critical thinking turned on
Boeing is a serious company and makes money but it still didn’t build reusable rockets on it’s own. It doesn’t produce disruptive innovation.
That would explain a lot because I remember the first iPhone quite well and it was terrible , no 3G , no support for 3rd party apps no GPS....while direct competitors like Palm , NokiaN95 and PocketPC all had such things , in fact I recall that when one friend of mine bought the first iPhone I was quite excited to see what it could do to live up to the hype that preceded it’s launch...turns out my 2005 PocketPC (incidentally Ballmer era) could do the exact same things.
The iPhone won because it provided a simplicity and not because it managed to do many things. You might not value simplicity but many people did and as a result Apple made a lot of money.
Honestly this just seems a PR strategy to conceal the truth form the public’s eyes .
No. Having vision is a lot more than PR. Steve Job managed to produce simpler products because he had the courage to not do things like allow the first iPhone to run third party apps.
The PocketPC and the Palm had UI’s that were build around the idea of a stylus and buttons and not an UI that’s purely about multitouch.
The first Apple Watch didn’t have a sleep tracker or allowed third party sleep tracking apps because otherwise people would have complained even more about battery issues.
I’m at the moment reading “The Hard Thing About Hard Things” by Ben Horowitz. It’s a good book to get a view on the mindset of how Silicon Valley companies are run.
The relationship between a company and it’s clients or the general public (if a consumer product) is ALWAYS adversarial
No, the company wants to make money and if it does so by providing value for the customer there’s nothing adversarial about it. It’s quite often win-win.
Boeing is a serious company and makes money but it still didn’t build reusable rockets on it’s own. It doesn’t produce disruptive innovation.
Which Musk obviously developed all by himself , while studying Axl Rose moves so he could woo his cult members at the (at this point) weekly PR event—underpaid engineers don’t have anything to do with that /s -
The iPhone won because it provided a simplicity and not because it managed to do many things. You might not value simplicity but many people did and as a result Apple made a lot of money.
We would never know what product would have won with the same amount of PR , marketing and CEO cult of personality following
No, the company wants to make money and if it does so by providing value for the customer there’s nothing adversarial about it. It’s quite often win-win.
The company wants to make money and if in order to do so it has to forcefully push down people’s throats a sub optimal product , such sub optimal product would be forcefully pushed using PR , marketing cult of personality , corporate cult...
The customer must remain rational and separate signal from noise (ignoring PR , cult of personality , corporate cult) in order to get the best deal , he’d be only able to do that by comparing specifics between multiple products or services and buy the one with the best specs/price ratio , not the one with the best press (apart from trusted consumer reviews) …..Also the customer must always try to find a way to undercut the company if possible in order to get the best possible deal at the company expenses like me right now , I am following your advise and I am torrenting the “The Hard Thing About Hard Things” instead of buying it and having my 20 dollar bill split between Bezos (other guy with a cult like following) , AMZN shareholders and Ben Horowitz and I think you did the same...:-)
Which Musk obviously developed all by himself , while studying Axl Rose moves so he could woo his cult members at the (at this point) weekly PR event—underpaid engineers don’t have anything to do with that /s -
He set the vision and provided the structure that made the achievement possible.
The company wants to make money and if in order to do so it has to forcefully push down people’s throats a sub optimal product
No startup wins if it’s product is completely supoptimal. SpaceX succeeds because it manages to make launches cheaper even if this often means using more experimental technology and therefore a higher risk of failed launches.
The iPhone provided an intuitive touch UI that was better than previous UI modes for the average person, even if it lacked many features.
That’s why most of the profits in the smart phone industry are made by Apple. The success of that kind of UI is also the reason why Google Pixel looks very much like a iPhone.
There are lots of little details like the fact that clicking a button element on the touchscreen created a little bit of haptic feedback. Not enough haptic feedback that a user notices as the phone vibrating but it’s very noticeable to use an App with haptic feedback turned on or off.
Taking the pen away got people to produce an UI that has less elements. Focusing on the fact that it didn’t have a lot of features misses the point. Disruptive products don’t do everything that competitors did at the beginning.
“The Hard Thing About Hard Things” instead of buying it and having my 20 dollar bill split between Bezos (other guy with a cult like following) , AMZN shareholders and Ben Horowitz
That’s not how the economics works in this case. I would estimate that less than half goes to the two.
But the brainpower behind such companies would be working at NASA , Volvo , FORD… Also you seem to forget subsides and corporate welfare...without taxpayers no Musk company would exist today as they would have gone bankrupt a dozen times , plus he and his companies are still heavily in debt with taxpayers , especially in Nevada and Buffalo , NY
There’s a lot of work done at NASA that leads to little results because NASA is pretty bureaucratic. The kind of work that’s required to produce a substantial reduction in the cost of space-flight couldn’t have been done at NASA.
Boing had no incentive to reduce costs given that it was paid cost-plus. Instead of reducing cost it focused on having subcontractors in important congressional districts.
Going from the culture of cost-plus to the structure of SpaceX that focuses on reusability to provide cheap spaceflight needed vision.
Taxpayers want electric vehicles in cities so that less asthmatics die due to pollution. The tax rebates for electric cars make sense policy wise.
The US does give tax rebates to Musk’s factories but it’s worth noting that Musk builds factories in the US instead of building them in China. That’s a decision that the government wants to reward.
If a company wants to expand it takes loans. If government loans are available it takes government loans. There’s nothing wrong with uses all available support.
Taxpayers want electric vehicles in cities so that less asthmatics die due to pollution. The tax rebates for electric cars make sense policy wise.
You can’t say that without a vote...also when people were asked to vote with their wallet which is arguably the best way to cast a vote electric cars always got beaten by a wide margin
When people asked to vote with their wallet the made the decision to contribute to kill a few of their neighbors. That doesn’t make it right.
Clean air in cities is a public good. Clean air is a classic issue of the tragedy of the commons and governments are supposed to act in defend the commons.
Besides air pollution there’s also noise pollution where electric cars also do radically better.
I can’t find poll data directly for electric cars but wind and solar subventions are popular. Given the question “prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar?” in 2009 77% said “increase”.
When people asked to vote with their wallet the made the decision to contribute to kill a few of their neighbors. That doesn’t make it right. Clean air in cities is a public good. Clean air is a classic issue of the tragedy of the commons and governments are supposed to act in defend the commons.
You could argue that they were not killing their neighbors , but saving their children which would have not been born were they had to pay 75k for a Tesla (a heavy burden on finances)… a 2003 Mercedes C 240 at 4k instead seems a good bargain so a couple would feel financially secure enough to have a kid..
Government while picking winners and losers more often than not doesn’t look at the whole picture , people should be informed by honest reports clearly stating how better would their lives be tomorrow if they made a sacrifice today and about the extremely beneficial impacts on their lives if the whole population made such sacrifices , but ultimately they should be free to decide what to do with their own money
Personally I would love the government to outright ban the entertainment industry , the sport industry , gambling , the fashion industry and a whole bunch of other sectors of the economy so that brainpower and capital could be redirected towards the important stuff (energy , healthcare , infrastructure , cyberinfrastructure , research , basic research....) but at the same time I am conscious that it will never happen because no substantial change has ever been enforced from the top without at least 20% of the population wanting it badly...and guess what ….unfortunately for me people flock to Vegas , love to watch Netflix , pay attention to fashion and spend up to 7000 $ for a seat at the SuperBowl...so I have to resign myself to convince people not to throw their money , attention and brainpower to such economic black holes which don’t contribute in any way to the advancement of society .
I can’t find poll data directly for electric cars but wind and solar subventions are popular. Given the question “prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar?” in 2009 77% said “increase”.
That’s because people were not allowed to vote with their wallet , they have to somehow materially see money leaving their wallet to make a conscious decision , otherwise we’re just playing the feel good card without looking at the whole picture....people must be informed that switching from fossil fuels to solar and winds means sacrifice and reduced economic prosperity in the short medium term , but a better future and a more radious perspective in the long term , so they’d be able to make a conscious decision , concealing that information is wrong , damaging and most importantly ineffective
You could argue that they were not killing their neighbors , but saving their children which would have not been born were they had to pay 75k for a Tesla (a heavy burden on finances)… a 2003 Mercedes C 240 at 4k instead seems a good bargain so a couple would feel financially secure enough to have a kid..
If you argue that people don’t die due to the pollution produced by cars in cities than you are simply out of touch with empiric reality.
There’s a reason why we had the biggest fine to a corporation lately for overpopulation due to cars. It’s a serious issue.
The fact that 75k is expensive to get an electric car is precisely the reason why rebates make sense.
but ultimately they should be free to decide what to do with their own money
Not when it comes to harming their neighbors. Pollution does harm people and kills people. You don’t solve issues of the tragedy of the commons by
people must be informed that switching from fossil fuels to solar and winds means sacrifice and reduced economic prosperity in the short medium term
It means also less deaths of asthmatics in the short term. Clean air in cities is a valuable public good.
Many towns have speed limits to prevent noise pollution. People frequently violate those speed limits because they care more about their own interests than about
If you argue that people don’t die due to the pollution produced by cars in cities than you are simply out of touch with empiric reality. There’s a reason why we had the biggest fine to a corporation lately for overpopulation due to cars. It’s a serious issue.
Couples not having kids because they are not financially secure too.....That’s a human life lost too...how can you value more one or the other , you simply can’t
Not when it comes to harming their neighbors. Pollution does harm people and kills people. You don’t solve issues of the tragedy of the commons by
Preserving the health of their neighbors is de facto harming a human life which is not taken into the world because a couple doesn’t feel secure enough...
It means also less deaths of asthmatics in the short term. Clean air in cities is a valuable public good.
The workforce of tomorrow is a valuable public good too...
Preserving the health of their neighbors is de facto harming a human life which is not taken into the world because a couple doesn’t feel secure enough...
I don’t think that there’s a significant number of people who buy Tesla’s but who don’t feel financially secure enough to get children. What makes you think that’s the case?
That’s a human life lost too..
People dying from illness is not morally equivalent to people not getting born. You don’t get off with murder for offsetting it by getting two children.
The workforce of tomorrow is a valuable public good too...
The workforce works better with clean air and low noise too. People can concentrate better and the have less sick days.
It’s worth noting that paying subventions for EV’s isn’t just a Western thing. China also customers who buy Tesla cars subventions.
I don’t think that there’s a significant number of people who buy Tesla’s but who don’t feel financially secure enough to get children. What makes you think that’s the case?
In fact people who want to have children vote with their wallet and buy a 2003 Mercedes C 240 selling at 4k or even better they use public transport to go to work and other activities ; people buying Teslas at 75k are 99% the same people who used to buy Mustangs and Corvettes at 75k , they have not a worry in the world financially..
People dying from illness is not morally equivalent to people not getting born. You don’t get off with murder for offsetting it by getting two children.
I never mentioned morals , workforce is about productivity , we should move these people away from urban centers and enable them work from remote in their new home in the countryside instead of slowing down our growth because they would suffer consequences , so we avoid their death and propel our growth , win-win
people buying Teslas at 75k are 99% the same people who used to buy Mustangs and Corvettes at 75k , they have not a worry in the world financially..
So you agree that the point you made above is baseless?
we should move these people away from urban centers and enable them work from remote in their new home in the countryside instead of slowing down our growth because they would suffer consequences
Making a decision to move people away from urban centers is what Mao tried in the Great Leap forward. It didn’t turn out well. You might think that it works better these days is that we have telecommuting but cities still have a lot of synergy effects.
But what exactly do you mean in practice? You seem to oppose the government incentivizing factories to be build in the countryside.
If you look at SpaceX competitors nobody would recognize Dennis Muilenburg, the CEO of Boeing at the street either.
The difference between SpaceX isn’t just the work of engineers. It’s also that the company structure is completely different. Boeing uses a lot of bespoke parts that are created by
The iPhone didn’t succeed because it was technically superior but because Steve Jobs had the vision for a touch-based phone operation system with no stylus and only one button.
Microsoft did much better under Bill Gates (who articulated a public vision) than under Steve Ballmer who wasn’t a guy who focused on a vision.
Checks out , always thought Boeing was a serious company in fact they don’t to rely on cult of personality , corporate cult or massive PR
So did you just say this is something americans really want (at least for consumer product) ? Some megalomaniac narcissist with massive conflict of interest using PR and cult of personality to try and forcefully push down their throats a product they don’t really need using a cool video presentation in a basketball arena? That would explain a lot because I remember the first iPhone quite well and it was terrible , no 3G , no support for 3rd party apps no GPS....while direct competitors like Palm , NokiaN95 and PocketPC all had such things , in fact I recall that when one friend of mine bought the first iPhone I was quite excited to see what it could do to live up to the hype that preceded it’s launch...turns out my 2005 PocketPC (incidentally Ballmer era) could do the exact same things.
Honestly this just seems a PR strategy to conceal the truth form the public’s eyes .The relationship between a company and it’s clients or the general public (if a consumer product) is ALWAYS adversarial , every tactic employed to conceal this reality (excessive PR , cult of personality , corporate cult , CEO media appearances ) is only adopted to increase margins or create a situation where executives and CEOs would be able to get away with stuff , they would not be able to get away with otherwise. That’s why people should not buy into this and always keep their critical thinking turned on
Boeing is a serious company and makes money but it still didn’t build reusable rockets on it’s own. It doesn’t produce disruptive innovation.
The iPhone won because it provided a simplicity and not because it managed to do many things. You might not value simplicity but many people did and as a result Apple made a lot of money.
No. Having vision is a lot more than PR. Steve Job managed to produce simpler products because he had the courage to not do things like allow the first iPhone to run third party apps.
The PocketPC and the Palm had UI’s that were build around the idea of a stylus and buttons and not an UI that’s purely about multitouch.
The first Apple Watch didn’t have a sleep tracker or allowed third party sleep tracking apps because otherwise people would have complained even more about battery issues.
I’m at the moment reading “The Hard Thing About Hard Things” by Ben Horowitz. It’s a good book to get a view on the mindset of how Silicon Valley companies are run.
No, the company wants to make money and if it does so by providing value for the customer there’s nothing adversarial about it. It’s quite often win-win.
Which Musk obviously developed all by himself , while studying Axl Rose moves so he could woo his cult members at the (at this point) weekly PR event—underpaid engineers don’t have anything to do with that /s -
We would never know what product would have won with the same amount of PR , marketing and CEO cult of personality following
The company wants to make money and if in order to do so it has to forcefully push down people’s throats a sub optimal product , such sub optimal product would be forcefully pushed using PR , marketing cult of personality , corporate cult...
The customer must remain rational and separate signal from noise (ignoring PR , cult of personality , corporate cult) in order to get the best deal , he’d be only able to do that by comparing specifics between multiple products or services and buy the one with the best specs/price ratio , not the one with the best press (apart from trusted consumer reviews) …..Also the customer must always try to find a way to undercut the company if possible in order to get the best possible deal at the company expenses like me right now , I am following your advise and I am torrenting the “The Hard Thing About Hard Things” instead of buying it and having my 20 dollar bill split between Bezos (other guy with a cult like following) , AMZN shareholders and Ben Horowitz and I think you did the same...:-)
He set the vision and provided the structure that made the achievement possible.
No startup wins if it’s product is completely supoptimal. SpaceX succeeds because it manages to make launches cheaper even if this often means using more experimental technology and therefore a higher risk of failed launches.
The iPhone provided an intuitive touch UI that was better than previous UI modes for the average person, even if it lacked many features. That’s why most of the profits in the smart phone industry are made by Apple. The success of that kind of UI is also the reason why Google Pixel looks very much like a iPhone.
There are lots of little details like the fact that clicking a button element on the touchscreen created a little bit of haptic feedback. Not enough haptic feedback that a user notices as the phone vibrating but it’s very noticeable to use an App with haptic feedback turned on or off.
Taking the pen away got people to produce an UI that has less elements. Focusing on the fact that it didn’t have a lot of features misses the point. Disruptive products don’t do everything that competitors did at the beginning.
That’s not how the economics works in this case. I would estimate that less than half goes to the two.
Would you say that his contributions are proportional to his profits? (money , influence , status , cult following..)
I don’t think “proportional” is a concept that’s useful in this context. Without Musk SpaceX would exist and Tesla would have gone bankrupt.
It’s like asking for the proportional effect of the seed, the water and the sun in growing a tree.
But the brainpower behind such companies would be working at NASA , Volvo , FORD… Also you seem to forget subsides and corporate welfare...without taxpayers no Musk company would exist today as they would have gone bankrupt a dozen times , plus he and his companies are still heavily in debt with taxpayers , especially in Nevada and Buffalo , NY
There’s a lot of work done at NASA that leads to little results because NASA is pretty bureaucratic. The kind of work that’s required to produce a substantial reduction in the cost of space-flight couldn’t have been done at NASA. Boing had no incentive to reduce costs given that it was paid cost-plus. Instead of reducing cost it focused on having subcontractors in important congressional districts.
Going from the culture of cost-plus to the structure of SpaceX that focuses on reusability to provide cheap spaceflight needed vision.
Taxpayers want electric vehicles in cities so that less asthmatics die due to pollution. The tax rebates for electric cars make sense policy wise.
The US does give tax rebates to Musk’s factories but it’s worth noting that Musk builds factories in the US instead of building them in China. That’s a decision that the government wants to reward.
If a company wants to expand it takes loans. If government loans are available it takes government loans. There’s nothing wrong with uses all available support.
You can’t say that without a vote...also when people were asked to vote with their wallet which is arguably the best way to cast a vote electric cars always got beaten by a wide margin
When people asked to vote with their wallet the made the decision to contribute to kill a few of their neighbors. That doesn’t make it right. Clean air in cities is a public good. Clean air is a classic issue of the tragedy of the commons and governments are supposed to act in defend the commons.
Besides air pollution there’s also noise pollution where electric cars also do radically better.
I can’t find poll data directly for electric cars but wind and solar subventions are popular. Given the question “prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar?” in 2009 77% said “increase”.
You could argue that they were not killing their neighbors , but saving their children which would have not been born were they had to pay 75k for a Tesla (a heavy burden on finances)… a 2003 Mercedes C 240 at 4k instead seems a good bargain so a couple would feel financially secure enough to have a kid..
Government while picking winners and losers more often than not doesn’t look at the whole picture , people should be informed by honest reports clearly stating how better would their lives be tomorrow if they made a sacrifice today and about the extremely beneficial impacts on their lives if the whole population made such sacrifices , but ultimately they should be free to decide what to do with their own money
Personally I would love the government to outright ban the entertainment industry , the sport industry , gambling , the fashion industry and a whole bunch of other sectors of the economy so that brainpower and capital could be redirected towards the important stuff (energy , healthcare , infrastructure , cyberinfrastructure , research , basic research....) but at the same time I am conscious that it will never happen because no substantial change has ever been enforced from the top without at least 20% of the population wanting it badly...and guess what ….unfortunately for me people flock to Vegas , love to watch Netflix , pay attention to fashion and spend up to 7000 $ for a seat at the SuperBowl...so I have to resign myself to convince people not to throw their money , attention and brainpower to such economic black holes which don’t contribute in any way to the advancement of society .
That’s because people were not allowed to vote with their wallet , they have to somehow materially see money leaving their wallet to make a conscious decision , otherwise we’re just playing the feel good card without looking at the whole picture....people must be informed that switching from fossil fuels to solar and winds means sacrifice and reduced economic prosperity in the short medium term , but a better future and a more radious perspective in the long term , so they’d be able to make a conscious decision , concealing that information is wrong , damaging and most importantly ineffective
If you argue that people don’t die due to the pollution produced by cars in cities than you are simply out of touch with empiric reality. There’s a reason why we had the biggest fine to a corporation lately for overpopulation due to cars. It’s a serious issue.
The fact that 75k is expensive to get an electric car is precisely the reason why rebates make sense.
Not when it comes to harming their neighbors. Pollution does harm people and kills people. You don’t solve issues of the tragedy of the commons by
It means also less deaths of asthmatics in the short term. Clean air in cities is a valuable public good.
Many towns have speed limits to prevent noise pollution. People frequently violate those speed limits because they care more about their own interests than about
Couples not having kids because they are not financially secure too.....That’s a human life lost too...how can you value more one or the other , you simply can’t
Preserving the health of their neighbors is de facto harming a human life which is not taken into the world because a couple doesn’t feel secure enough...
The workforce of tomorrow is a valuable public good too...
I don’t think that there’s a significant number of people who buy Tesla’s but who don’t feel financially secure enough to get children. What makes you think that’s the case?
People dying from illness is not morally equivalent to people not getting born. You don’t get off with murder for offsetting it by getting two children.
The workforce works better with clean air and low noise too. People can concentrate better and the have less sick days.
It’s worth noting that paying subventions for EV’s isn’t just a Western thing. China also customers who buy Tesla cars subventions.
In fact people who want to have children vote with their wallet and buy a 2003 Mercedes C 240 selling at 4k or even better they use public transport to go to work and other activities ; people buying Teslas at 75k are 99% the same people who used to buy Mustangs and Corvettes at 75k , they have not a worry in the world financially..
I never mentioned morals , workforce is about productivity , we should move these people away from urban centers and enable them work from remote in their new home in the countryside instead of slowing down our growth because they would suffer consequences , so we avoid their death and propel our growth , win-win
So you agree that the point you made above is baseless?
Making a decision to move people away from urban centers is what Mao tried in the Great Leap forward. It didn’t turn out well. You might think that it works better these days is that we have telecommuting but cities still have a lot of synergy effects.
But what exactly do you mean in practice? You seem to oppose the government incentivizing factories to be build in the countryside.