& here is the Project Syndicate-edited version of my thoughts on how Tesla needs to replace Elon Musk with its very own Tim Cook pronto. I blame the $60 billion "compensation" package...
Musk: “We should be thought of as an AI or robotics company. If you value Tesla as just like an auto company, you just have to – fundamentally, it’s just the wrong framework … the way to think of Tesla is almost entirely in terms of solving autonomy and being able to turn on that autonomy for a gigantic fleet. "
Even if that were true, Tesla is not doing a good job of building self driving vehicles. Google (Alphabet)'s subsidiary, Waymo, is a superior technology in that regard, with a far lower accident rate to Tesla's record. This may be because Waymo uses expensive LIDAR as part of the sensing systemwhilst Tesla just uses cameras (because humans only have eyes). Tesla's humanoid robots are still smoke and mirrors. Maybe self driving cars are teh future - I certainly would like to use autonomous taxis if the far was low enough - but this has foild Uber, and even Apple exited the electric car business. Most EVs are still manually driven, and as far as being useful technology for transitioning away from fossil fuels - this is the relevant technology, not "self-driving". A horse 'self drives" more intelligently. Trains, ships, and planes all have some sort of "autopilot" to reduce the load on teh driver, but they all have a driver/captain anyway. I cannot imagine that any car will be entirely self-driving without the need for some human control - whether an onboard or remote driver. to takeover in unexpected conditions outside of the "trained" conditions of the AI. As MIT has shown, culture also determines responses when choices have to be made - kill the passenger, the pedestrians, older people vs the young, etc. This means there is no universal FSD technology. There may not be on any likely investment horizon. So the idea remains a hard nut to crack or perhaps a scifi fantasy.
The other issues with Tesla is teh aftermarket in used cars. Who wants to buy a cheaper used Tesla when the monthly costs for many of teh features still have to be incurred to drive the car and be serviced at Tesla's demand or the car is bricked. [And don't forget the NDA]. My guess is that other manufacturers will soon surpass tesla on price and quality, leaving Teslas as luxury collectors' cars, rather than mass market ones, ensuring the economies of scale will fall behind the competitors used to delivering what customers' want, not what the CEO's ego wants.
I blame the two guys who told Musk that he should buy and run Twitter, thus distracting him from Tesla.
But seriously, Tesla doesn't rely on advertising because Musk himself provides so much marketing. That's a reason why he should be paid as much as any other car maker's ad expense - if his marketing were not now a negative to car sales. Given that, what should his compensation be? Tesla needs someone to pitch how much cheaper electricity is than gasoline. They need someone to guide new EV consumers to products for in-home charging stations, batteries, and garage top PV's. They need to pitch 'Never again pay for gasoline, or even for EV charging.' And they need someone to pitch to the government the need for a better electrical grid.
But Musk can't pitch any of those because he's pitching Tesla's unsustainable stock price, because he's pitching neo-fascist conspiracy theories, and because he can't personally handle success.
Musjk was already distracting himself on other technology projects before the Twitter acquisition. Twitter just brought out the his craziness. I just think he gets bored to the day to day work of running a business.
If shareholders are worried of Tesla being looted and dumped, perhaps there can be a deal in which Tesla shares can be traded to Musk in exchange for a significant stake in SpaceX and X.ai. That would cement Tesla a true technology company and discourage Musk to not drop the ball. This would, in effect, be his skin in the game.
I feel that this analysis is incomplete. The injured parties specifically mentioned are what people call "stakeholders" in opposition to shareholders, and you name as "Tesla’s employees, suppliers, and customers". But of course, the success of Musk's plan turns on being able to loot the place and escape; he is one of the "current Tesla shareholders planning to offload their holdings in the next couple of years". For that to work, some other shareholders must be injured in the conventional shareholder-capitalism way. Everything is securities fraud!
Musk: “We should be thought of as an AI or robotics company. If you value Tesla as just like an auto company, you just have to – fundamentally, it’s just the wrong framework … the way to think of Tesla is almost entirely in terms of solving autonomy and being able to turn on that autonomy for a gigantic fleet. "
Even if that were true, Tesla is not doing a good job of building self driving vehicles. Google (Alphabet)'s subsidiary, Waymo, is a superior technology in that regard, with a far lower accident rate to Tesla's record. This may be because Waymo uses expensive LIDAR as part of the sensing systemwhilst Tesla just uses cameras (because humans only have eyes). Tesla's humanoid robots are still smoke and mirrors. Maybe self driving cars are teh future - I certainly would like to use autonomous taxis if the far was low enough - but this has foild Uber, and even Apple exited the electric car business. Most EVs are still manually driven, and as far as being useful technology for transitioning away from fossil fuels - this is the relevant technology, not "self-driving". A horse 'self drives" more intelligently. Trains, ships, and planes all have some sort of "autopilot" to reduce the load on teh driver, but they all have a driver/captain anyway. I cannot imagine that any car will be entirely self-driving without the need for some human control - whether an onboard or remote driver. to takeover in unexpected conditions outside of the "trained" conditions of the AI. As MIT has shown, culture also determines responses when choices have to be made - kill the passenger, the pedestrians, older people vs the young, etc. This means there is no universal FSD technology. There may not be on any likely investment horizon. So the idea remains a hard nut to crack or perhaps a scifi fantasy.
The other issues with Tesla is teh aftermarket in used cars. Who wants to buy a cheaper used Tesla when the monthly costs for many of teh features still have to be incurred to drive the car and be serviced at Tesla's demand or the car is bricked. [And don't forget the NDA]. My guess is that other manufacturers will soon surpass tesla on price and quality, leaving Teslas as luxury collectors' cars, rather than mass market ones, ensuring the economies of scale will fall behind the competitors used to delivering what customers' want, not what the CEO's ego wants.
I blame the two guys who told Musk that he should buy and run Twitter, thus distracting him from Tesla.
But seriously, Tesla doesn't rely on advertising because Musk himself provides so much marketing. That's a reason why he should be paid as much as any other car maker's ad expense - if his marketing were not now a negative to car sales. Given that, what should his compensation be? Tesla needs someone to pitch how much cheaper electricity is than gasoline. They need someone to guide new EV consumers to products for in-home charging stations, batteries, and garage top PV's. They need to pitch 'Never again pay for gasoline, or even for EV charging.' And they need someone to pitch to the government the need for a better electrical grid.
But Musk can't pitch any of those because he's pitching Tesla's unsustainable stock price, because he's pitching neo-fascist conspiracy theories, and because he can't personally handle success.
Musjk was already distracting himself on other technology projects before the Twitter acquisition. Twitter just brought out the his craziness. I just think he gets bored to the day to day work of running a business.
If shareholders are worried of Tesla being looted and dumped, perhaps there can be a deal in which Tesla shares can be traded to Musk in exchange for a significant stake in SpaceX and X.ai. That would cement Tesla a true technology company and discourage Musk to not drop the ball. This would, in effect, be his skin in the game.
I feel that this analysis is incomplete. The injured parties specifically mentioned are what people call "stakeholders" in opposition to shareholders, and you name as "Tesla’s employees, suppliers, and customers". But of course, the success of Musk's plan turns on being able to loot the place and escape; he is one of the "current Tesla shareholders planning to offload their holdings in the next couple of years". For that to work, some other shareholders must be injured in the conventional shareholder-capitalism way. Everything is securities fraud!