Slashdot Mirror


The Cult of Elon Musk Shines With Steve Jobs' Aura

HughPickens.com writes Alan Boyle writes that over the years, Elon Musk's showmanship, straight-ahead smarts and far-out ideas have earned him a following that spans the geek spectrum — to the point that some observers see glimmers of the aura that once surrounded Apple's Steve Jobs. "To me, it feels like he's the most obvious inheritor of Steve Jobs' mantle," says Ashlee Vance, who's writing a biography of Musk that at one time had the working title The Iron Man. "Obviously, Steve Jobs' products changed the world ... [But] if Elon's right about all these things that he's after, his products should ultimately be more meaningful than what Jobs came up with. He's the guy doing the most concrete stuff about global warming." So what is Musk's vision? What motivates Musk at the deepest level? "It's his Mars thing," says Vance. Inspired in part by the novels of Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein, Musk has come around to the view that humanity's long-term future depends on extending its reach beyond Earth, starting with colonies on Mars. Other notables like physicist Stephen Hawking have laid out similar scenarios — but Musk is actually doing something to turn those interplanetary dreams into a reality. Vance thinks that Musk is on the verge of breaking out from geek guru status to a level of mass-market recognition that's truly on a par with the late Steve Jobs. Additions to the Tesla automotive line, plus the multibillion-dollar promise of Tesla's battery-producing "gigafactory" in Nevada, could push Musk over the edge. "Tesla, as a brand, really does seem to have captured the public's imagination. ... All of a sudden he's got a hip product that looks great, and it's creating jobs. The next level feels like it's got to be that third-generation, blockbuster mainstream product. The story is not done."

8 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. I'm OK with this by Bradmont · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In OK with this, especially since the major difference between the two is that Musk is actually innovating, instead of just making great packaging and hype.

    1. Re:I'm OK with this by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The principle difference between them is that Jobs was always known to be a huge douche-nozzle. If Musk is similar, at least the stories of it haven't spread as much yet.

      --
      John
  2. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Electric cars were one of the FIRST automobiles. It wasn't until gasoline was able to be produced in greater quantities and cheaper because of "cracking" that the internal combustion engine took off.

    Musk is not an innovator. He is taking advantage of the latest battery technology (developed by others) and trying to produce an electric car - which has been attempted on an off for almost 180 years.

    Musk is a promotor just like Jobs.

    1. Re:Really? by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Musk is a promotor just like Jobs.

      Well, they're both innovators and promoters and visionaries.

      They both innovated - Jobs by bringing GUIs to the masses and many other things by realizing what the masses want. (It's easy to bring something for a niche, but much more difficult to bring it to the masses). Musk brought innovative person-to-person payment system - send anyone money over the internet (he's a co-founder of Paypal, after all). Because until then, sending money meant you were basically a business, or were patient and did the whole money-order thing.

      And they both had visions on how things should work. Jobs was about computing and making lives better through transparent computers (computers that you didn't see, but did things for you in the background). Musk is seeing how to improve our lives and future. You may not be able to afford a Tesla now, but you know, electric cars are actually very practical machines and you're now able within reason to even drive with an electric car to your destination.

      Oh yeah, and both are salespeople because if you can't sell it, there's no point to even trying. Few things sell themselves, and most that assume they would, fail because of the hidden sales message.A few bad news articles and if you're not front and center managing the message, will easily spiral out of control. It's why Jobs made Microsoft invest $150M (message: If Microsoft invests in Apple, things aren't as bad as they seem). Or why Musk gets front and center when Tesla gets news, be it fires or negative reviews or whatever. Because if you're not dealing with the message, it's not going away.

  3. Since about 2012... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.latimes.com/busines...

    His 2010 cameo in Iron Man 2 didn't hurt either, and neither did the use of SpaceX for filming of some scenes.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ve...

    It also helps that unlike Ellison his products are both physical and have direct practicality for most of the population so he is more easily associated with the inventor aspect of Tony Stark persona.
    Signature red color of his space-age car is another bonus.
    And so is the whole "rocket man" thing.

    In comparison, Ellison is more like Tony Stark BEFORE Iron Man.
    Yachting billionaire who collects cars, jets, islands and women and has a million dollar entertainment system which uses a swimming pool as a subwoofer, while his "charity" donations seem mostly to revolve around lawsuits.

    As for comparison to Steve Jobs...
    As the Iron Man 2 article above stated, Steve Jobs has "always been less Iron Man, more Willy Wonka".
    Who, while espousing such lines as "Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?" ended up selling overpriced toys.

    While Musk actually seems to be trying to actively fulfill the second part of that quote.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  4. Re:He's a nasty little man by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's Top Gear doing the misdirections and deceptions. They fudged the tests in order to make fun of the Tesla, and when Musk called them out on it and sued them for libel and defamation, Top Gear's defence was that they are "an entertainment program, not to be taken seriously". And that's exactly what it is.

    I'm sure the man has an ego the size of Jupiter and a temper to match, but at least he has some reason to have those. He's getting things done in several difficult industries. The comparison to Apple and Jobs is apt in more ways that one: like Apple's flagship product, the Tesla has caught the attention of many, and every little flaw is put under a magnifying glass and blown out of proportion.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. There's a pretty massive difference by markass530 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Musk is more the Antithesis of Jobs

    http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...

  6. Designing to the minimum by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fuel economy standards were fixed for 25 years, and the average fuel economy remained constant. Companies design to the standard.

    Quite so. Companies don't compete on fuel economy and fuel economy is usually about 20th on the list of things car buyers actually care about. So unless the government forces their hand either directly through mandated standards or indirectly through gasoline taxes, car companies are going to meet the fuel economy standards and not much more. I fully expect our current fuel standards to not be updated for another 20-30 years regardless of what might be actually achievable.

    It's important to know what companies can achieve so you don't make impossible goals, but standards drive change.

    Nothing in even the most absurd proposal for CAFE standards was technologically impossible and it is unlikely that it was economically impossible either despite protests from certain groups. We have the technology TODAY to make cars that get well over 100mpg or the electric equivalent. They would be quite different from what we are accustomed to seeing on the road but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Tesla is a good example) Any automotive engineer (and I am one) who tells you doubling average fuel economy in passenger cars is impossible is either lying or badly misinformed. Modern engines are far more efficient than those from 30 years ago but we've increased the horsepower so much that the net result is (almost) no change in fuel economy.