Thanks. I get that it can be very hard to get a start up launched for a simple product. None of the things Musk has done or been involved with are simple. It makes PayPal look like a walk in the park. So what if he claims a 420 moment and exhaled.

Early on Musk decided to be a 'builder' and everyone else is checking their time on the clock and when to clock out. Too many ICE mfrs are locked into there little world of trying to grow sales of existing cars or getting ready for the model refresh/redesigns. Musk went bigger and bolder beyond just the car company (eg no longer just Tesla Motors). No wonder it is valued much more like a tech company than a traditional car one.

 

Apple ventured into a market dominated by telecom companies. It marked a shift to touch screens. Tesla's Model S/X/3 all have touchscreens as central interface.

Apple had unique computer experience to provide a product that's much more than a dumb phone. It opened up the phone to reap the rewards of accessible data networks (2g/3g/4g/4LTE). Apple changed the game across all global telecom networks.

Tesla's base of manufacturing in Fremont is near by Apple. You cannot underscore the Silicon Valley and cutthroat tech influence at work. The product on 4 wheels has to succeed. Failure is not an option. The choice to go emissions free meant logistical hurdles of battery supply and charger stations had to be addressed. For apple, they knew the writing was on the wall for Macs. There was a much larger global audience for handheld smartphones. Failure was not an option to do this right. They seized the momentum and to this day, they still have the momentum. Tesla is building on the momentum of the roadster, to Model S, to Model X, and now Model 3.

The byproduct of tech and accessible data networks, is how Tesla is offering a unique transportation experience and with speedy 0-60 times without resorting to V8 or V12 exotic engines to do it. The cars are smart and able to aid the driver to it's nearest supercharger station to alleviate any range anxiety.

Tesla's entry into a different car platform with a simple purpose of disrupting the hybrid and e-vehicle market. There was no real luxury option. Tesla staked their claim on the luxury & high priced segment. Very much like Apple created a popular high end market for $350 phones (and growing to today's line up of $750-1250 phones). A funny thing happened along the way where it started to steal car sales from the high end ICE car market priced $60k and up. Now the Model 3 is creating it's own momentum against cars $30k and up. It's disrupting much more than just the hybrid and e-vehicle market.

There's probably more Apple synergies than the ones listed here. It has never been about market share but what you're doing to make the market and doing things no one else is willing to take on with a startup entrepreneural spirit. Microsoft's former exec Steve Ballmer laughed and sat on the sidelines. He said the iPhone wasn't going to make it. Can the Auto industry afford to laugh at Tesla and sit on the sidelines? It's a matter of time when e-vehicles grow to 20% of market. The longer you wait, you lose your seat at the table with a viable product at a ICE competitive or better price.

 

Maybe its because I've only worked on the engineering / product side of things, but in my 20 years of experience working in Silicon Valley would not be described as "Cutthroat". I'm not sure where this misconception comes from. To be fair I've not worked at Apple, but I've worked at some of the other top tech companies in the Valley and we mostly value inclusion, fairness and work-life balance as our overall company cultures. This is how we aim to attract top talent to our company.

 

All great points, but Tesla is not making any money, therefor I am not sure how in any way they are being disruptive. Toyota or GM can very, very easily make a Model S car with all the equivalent performance, however it probably cannot be done while making a profit, so they choose not to do it. Does this not make sense?

 

I live in the SF Bay Area. I know tons of people that work in tech. And majority of people that rent my property in SF works in tech.

Maybe, back in the day, tech companies value inclusion, fairness and work-life balance. However - this a myth today.

Lets start off with a few statistics:
Majority of a tech company's upper management are White males.
Majority of a tech company engineering department are either White or Asian males.
Majority of a tech company's HR department are mostly females.
Lack of Latino American and African American within any department.
Lack of conservative voice within a tech company. (Look - I'm a liberal. But lets be fair. Tech companies ban the voices of conservative talking points and that's whack. Everyone has a right to their opinions.)
I wouldn't call this "inclusion" or "fairness".

Majority of the tech workers live in SF and they work in major tech HQ in SJ. Or vice versa, tech workers from other parts of the Bay Area come to SF. This is why there are so many tech buses. On average, tech workers travel 1-2 hours a day to get to work on either a bus or carpool.
Here's an example: My friend, who works at Facebook, travels by tech bus nearly 2 hours from his place in SF to Menlo Park. He leaves the house at 7, gets to work 9, works, leaves work at roughly 5-6, takes the tech bus back to SF, and he'll make it home by roughly 8-ish. Hes also told me, upper management, encourages you to work while on the tech bus as well.
This is not what I call work-life balance.

The reason "top-talent" is attracted to major tech corporations is because of the pay and stock options.
The reason "entry-level" engineers are attracted to major tech corporations is because of the pay and the name of the company. Back when I was in college, there was so, so many people claiming they want to work at Google during a "get-to-know me" class introduction. During this introduction, professors would ask why. 90% of these students didn't know why. They just wanted to work there. Its the brand.

 

 

The different with Amazon, Apple and Facebook is that they weren't burning cash. Tesla is.

The thing is - ICE companies can build a competitive EV car to take on Tesla. The question is do they want too. If you look into the business aspect of whats happening, ICE companies are letting Tesla test the waters. Once the waters has been tested, Toyota or GM has tons and tons of money to throw on EV cars and make something better than Tesla.
You can see it as ICE companies are learning from Tesla's mistakes.
Besides - the Tesla competition is coming. Porsche Taycan will give the Tesla a run for its money. If I were to pay 100K for an EV, I'll buy a Porsche.

 

Any major city is going to have long commutes. Here in Toronto, I have workers that take a 55 minute train ride, 20 minutes to drive and park at the train station, then 15 minutes to walk from Union Station. Some of the employees days tart at 7:15 just to make it to the office by 9am. If you drive in, its minimum 2hrs if you are outside the GTA and trying to get in for 9am.

I bought my place in Toronto 27 years ago, knowing that it would be impossible to move into the city.. My parents was bought over 42 years ago. I do not know how anyone can afford to buy a place in a major metropolitan city. https://condos.ca/toronto/maple-leaf...5-bremner-blvd

 

 

Would you agree that Tesla could go bankrupt tomorrow? Or be bought out? And are making no profit?

 

 

Apple makes a big profit with a 20% market-share primarily because they make a quality product that doesn't break (ask me how I know), and they don't have to waste much time or money doing warranty work or replacements. Tesla, granted, makes an excellent long-range battery by today's standards, but reliability problems have beset them for several years......not to mention inadequate production facilities that can't meet customer-orders. In addition (and you can point to Musk for this), Tesla insists on the money-draining policy of company-ownership of all production, dealer, service, and body-shop facilities. That alone drains a huge amount from the company coffers.....though it may work for computers, in automotive history, company-ownership of all the facilities like that has never worked feasibly on a large mass-production scale, and clearly isn't working with Tesla, either.

 

 

 

I wasn't implying, of course, that they never break. All products have a certain failure rate. But Apple products, in general, compared to most rivals, have an excellent reliability record. My brother, who works for a high-tech firm that does government contract work, reports that most of the engineers in the firm have Apple products at home as their personal computers.