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."
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.
I'm all looking around for the cologne advertisement.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I think it's actually Obama who's done the most on climate change concretely. He signed into law new fuel economy standards that will double the fuel called me a new vehicles. Elon musk is selling a couple thousand cars a year, well Obama standards will affect millions of cars every year.
Face it, he's a little shit who covers his mistakes and his products weaknesses with astroturf and false PR.
Sounds like Steve Jobs
They did? I sort of thought he just "invented" slightly tweaked things that already existed and respectively made the second most popular version of them, and then the most popular version of them.
At least with the computer you could say that he was the co-designer of the modern computer, designer because neither of them invented the idea just popularised and commercialised on the idea. But I am not sure that the Apple computer really had that much sway on the idea of what the PC is/was.
And while he was the leader in mp3 players and then smartphones, I am not sure that his designs were anything other that high-quality copies of what others had already done well before him. If Jobs was a leader in anything it was of aesthetic design and branding. Musk is the new Jobs, but he seems to be doing a better job of actually leading the pack instead of just following.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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.
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
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...
Musk is more the Antithesis of Jobs
http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...
The NYT drove the car in circles in a parking lot to run down the battery, then lied about the range. Musk pulled the GPS data and PROVED they were lying.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Not this. Fuel economy standards were fixed for 25 years, and the average fuel economy remained constant. Companies design to the standard. It's important to know what companies can achieve so you don't make impossible goals, but standards drive change.
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.
They did? I sort of thought he just "invented" slightly tweaked things that already existed and respectively made the second most popular version of them, and then the most popular version of them.
Without getting too hyperbolic about it, yes you could say Apple's products have changed the world. I'm old enough to remember the world before Apple computers. Yes they really did change things. EVERY PC, smartphone, tablet computer, and MP3 player you buy today was influenced in demonstrable ways by Apple. While we shouldn't overstate the importance of that, we should shouldn't understate it either.
As an aside, you keep saying "he" as if Steve Jobs was personally responsible for them. He was the leader of the company that did these things. He gets a lot of credit but let's keep the credit to what he actually did shall we?
At least with the computer you could say that he was the co-designer of the modern computer, designer because neither of them invented the idea just popularised and commercialised on the idea.
You're going to find that very few ideas are truly original. That doesn't make turning them into a commercial success any less impressive. I'm not sure you appreciate how rare a success like Apple is. Steve Jobs genius (if that is the appropriate word) was in his business acumen and apparently his design chops. Those are important things and he used them as well as anyone I've ever seen. He had a vision and he got people to buy into it. That's what effective leaders do.
And while he was the leader in mp3 players and then smartphones, I am not sure that his designs were anything other that high-quality copies of what others had already done well before him.
Again, it isn't "he". It was Apple of which Steve Jobs was an important part. What Apple did was create the versions of those product categories that everyone else cribs off of. Do NOT underestimate the value and difficulty of that. Apple completely changed the game in smartphones. Same with the graphical interface. Same with the desktop laser printer. Where they've had the biggest effect is in software. The main thing that makes Apple products different and sets the apart is the software. (Mac hardware running Windows is no different than a Dell) You don't have to be an Apple fanboi (I'm certainly not) to appreciate what they've accomplished and the influence they've had.
Yes this.
Standards were fixed? Irrelevant! They don't matter,the fuel economy of real vehicles in that time frame do. And reality shows the fuel economy of vehicles in the last 30+ years rising year after year:
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/si...
The only thing "fixed" in that link is the fuel economy of *imports*
The new standards are merely the auto industry road map, made by engineers and codified by Congress.
What's interesting is over the past 20 years OEMs made tremendous strides in efficiency, but instead of boosting MPGs they invested these gains into cars that were bigger and more powerful while meeting the same standards.
Exactly. And the reason is that people don't shop for cars primarily by fuel efficiency because they have no economic reason to do so. Gas is (relatively) cheap and people like big cars that go faster than necessary with lots of frivolous bells and whistles. Fuel economy is nice to have but generally considered as an afterthought.
Unless the government either mandates higher fuel economy standards or taxes gas prices until they are high enough to adjust buying behavior, then companies will build cars with the lowest possible fuel economy. We've seen this happen for the last 20 years. It's just an economic law of nature. Absent economic incentives people will do things that may not be in their own or in society's interest in the long run.
I'm as guilty as anyone else. I drive a pickup truck for practical reasons but even the most economical pickup available tops out at just under 30mpg highway (currently RAM 1500 Ecodiesel). I'd happily drive something with better fuel economy but nothing exists. I suppose I could make do with a different type of vehicle but I don't have any economic incentive to do so. So I don't.
I'm not so much Cult of Musk as a strident Anti-Retard supporter.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Wrong, *standards* don't matter, the actual fuel economy of U.S. vehicles has risen year after year in the last 30+ years.
Really? The facts say you are wrong. Average fuel economy barely budged between the early 1980s and 2007 when the new fuel economy standards were put in place. They started to creep up a bit in 2004 as fuel prices rose. After 2004 the average fuel economy has risen steadily due to a combination of higher fuel prices and increased mandated fuel standards. Now I'm no genius but I'm pretty sure that's a cause and effect relationship there. The fact that car companies are selling certain vehicles at a loss to ensure higher average fuel economy standards is proof positive that the standards are forcing the car companies to make more fuel efficient cars.
Obama's (actually Congress) new standards came from the auto industry, it is their roadmap.
The first increase in 2007 came under the Bush administration we've seen a steady increase in fuel economy since. In 2011 the Obama administration along with the major auto manufacturers came up with new CAFE standards that will take effect in 2017 and beyond.
Got any more unsupported "facts" you'd like to make up?
Steve Jobs revolutionized personal music players and smartphones. Elon Musk is revolutionizing energy production, battery technology, ground-based transportation, and space transportation. His goals are way more ambitious than any of the goals of Steve Jobs. And even though he has only achieved wide-scale success on one of those goals so far, producing a car that is safe, efficient, luxurious, and fast is much more difficult than doing the same for a phone. In that regard, Elon Musk has already surpassed Steve Jobs and he's only getting started.
They're both innovators, with the blood testing inventor doing more work. Whereas Musk recognized a good idea and spent millions backing and managing the production of such cars.
You do realize manufacturing cars requires a ton of capital. All inventions are kinda obvious once you seen them in action and know about their internals.
Engineers reading Slashdot don't want to admit the truth: Jobs was a true visionary who directed his engineers into making great products.
Sorry, the truth hurts.
I'm glad you didn't mention iPad. Remember the expensive devices Microsoft was pushing in late 90th?
For me, and I'm pretty sure for most owners of the pocket PC's in early 2000-s transition from "Pocket PC" => "Pocket PC + Phone" was more than obvious.
The only thing that was missing, was cheap enough tech.
Apple was not the only company working on it.
Multi-touch => pitch to zoom and the likes is obvious too, we had that back in 90th.
Musk, however, managed to create electric car market, when car manufacturers were saying, nah, maybe a decade later.
Here is what _I_ consider to be an innovator.
Musk is just a salesmen.
Ok, I'll bite. What exactly did Holmes, or even the other folks as Theranos, invent? Microfluidic blood tests, DNA based tests instead of ELISAs, All that stuff was invented in the '80s and '90s.
Have a look at her list of patents. Which actually present new ideas instead of combinations of well established technologies?
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/elizabeth-holmes
Musk took existing technology, improved it and recombined it until it could support real business plans.
Holmes took existing technology, improved it and recombined it until it could support a real business plan.
Good on both of them.