Photo: Paul Inkles on Flickr, modified
Not to sing my own praises, but it was the end of October when I published an editorial calling for an end to Elon Musk's tenure as CEO of Tesla, on the back of his erratic behaviour and damaging decisions over the past few years.
Did I get any cake for it? No, and neither did I deserve it since I thought (and still do) it was such a painfully obvious conclusion. I probably did get some abuse in the comments, but I wouldn't know: all this time spent on the Internet taught me when it is wiser to steer away from an article's comments section to protect my mental health. That's actually one of the few things Elon Musk could learn from me, apart from extracting a kickass espresso.
It's hard to pinpoint where it all started to go south for Musk, and that's because it was a long and winding process. Most people will point at the more recent Twitter acquisition debacle and everything that followed, but you could just as well go way further back (1,674 days, to be exact), when Elon promised we would have completely autonomous robotaxis making us $30,000 a year, or when he promised fully autonomous cross-country trips in a Tesla (that would be 2,589 days ago).
Have I gone insane? Am I counting the days from every one of Musk's unfulfilled promise? Because if I am, all those measures of looking after my mental health have clearly failed. Well, you'll be relieved to know (but not as relieved as my family) I'm fine, thank you very much for your concern. I just used the work of whoever is behind elonmusk.today, a website that tracks how long it's been since each of the Technoking's promise has failed. It's a valuable tool for putting things into perspective.
The first thing that strikes you is just how many of them there are. I won't go for a count, but let's just say your scrolling finger is going to hurt when you're done. However, it's the second thought that goes through your mind that hits home the hardest: this is, in part, what built Musk's immense wealth.
His recipe for success is simple in principle but obviously a lot more difficult to put in practice - otherwise, we'd all be billionaires. It's a more evolved version of the classic "fake it until you make it" mantra, with the very significant caveat that Tesla did actually make plenty of cars (and, for all their foibles, stupid features, and exaggerated stats, they still have a lot going for them), the best EV charging infrastructure in the U.S., as well as quite a few factories around the world.
At the same time, though, it also made bold claims and set unrealistic deadlines, all in an orchestrated attempt to make the company seem a lot more advanced than the competition, but also a lot more advanced than it really was. The end game was building up the Tesla stock, and if you look even at the current valuation, which is pretty low compared to last year's, you could say the gambit has paid off. So far.
However, there are people who compare Musk's methods of building up the stock of his companies to a Ponzi scheme, and while there are glaring differences (for one, Tesla is selling an actual product), the similarities can be just as striking.
The CEO's main concern has always been finding new investors. With Tesla finding it hard to turn its car-making business profitable, the seemingly only way to support the exceptionally rapid expansion was by constantly overestimating the company's capabilities - whether we're talking technology, production rate or even the vehicle specs themselves, nothing was exempted.
Whenever the due date of any of these commitments was looming close, Elon Musk would come out and make a new, even more outlandish claim. Alternatively, he would push back the deadline (I never heard someone say "next year" more often in my entire life), make an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted either way (but people chose to focus on the version most favourable for Tesla, for some reason), or even reveal a new vehicle.
Tesla's entire history is filled with such moments, but none was probably more blatantly fake than the second-gen Roadster. During the reveal, Musk claimed the four-seats sports car would have a 200 kWh battery pack good for 620 miles (which, as you know, very conveniently rounds up to 1,000 km), all while hitting the 60 mph (97 km/h) benchmark in under two seconds. Did I mention it could also "briefly fly?"
I swear, sometimes you have to sit and wonder whether it's Elon Musk's fault for making these ridiculous claims, or everyone else's for buying a ticket for the hype train and believing them even for a second. To be fair to the man, the one thing he did right was to make sure that, by hook or by crook (and by that, I mean skimping on build quality and after-sales support), Tesla did actually sell cars - and quite a lot of them for a company its age that had to pretty much carve open a niche in the market by itself.
However, all these overly optimistic estimations (you could call them "lies", but after hearing SpaceX describe its rocket blowing up as a "rapid unscheduled disassembly," I realized life is too short for boring and exact descriptions) that are yet to come true after so many years have to come crashing down at some point. It is literally like building a house of cards - the more you add on top, the heavier it gets, and the more strain is put on the foundation.
In Tesla's case, the foundation is its actual business. All the cards Musk has laid on top over the years have helped it to a certain degree, but the company simply can't keep up with the growth needed to sustain its image. There needs to be a change in tactics, and it's obvious at this point that Musk doesn't have any other strategies in his bag.
I find the fact he managed to sabotage Twitter, his main communication platform, quite ironic. The social media platform is far from dead, but ever since he was forced to buy it, it's been one lousy decision after another. However, not even the blue tick debacle can compare to the hugely sensitive situation Musk has put himself recently after seemingly agreeing with an antisemitic post.
I'm sure you know all about it so there's no point in going over it again, especially since it's such a touchy subject. That is precisely why anyone with a little bit of common sense and the knowledge that he's not the holder of the ultimate truth would have steered away from such topics. Not Musk.
Being the owner of Twitter.com automatically puts you under much heavier scrutiny, and since Elon is the kind of guy who likes to let everyone know his companies are him and he is the company, it's only natural that everything he says has a direct repercussion on Twitter itself. In this particular situation, the result was several high-profile companies deciding to cancel their advertising on the social media platform.
For years, it seemed like Musk was the driving force behind Tesla, but the recent events at Twitter.com seem to have opened up more people's eyes over the not so beneficial influence the billionaire can have on a brand. With Tesla, he still carries a lot of credit in the bank, credit that, for all the countless posts, he did not have at Twitter. However, it doesn't take a fortune teller to realize it might all implode over there as well at some point. Tesla is big, yes, but it's not big enough to count itself out of the woods just yet.
It would appear the first signs of worries inside the Tesla camp are beginning to emerge. As per CNN, Jerry Braakman, president of First American Trust and a Tesla shareholder, has asked the company's board of directors to suspend Musk over his perceived antisemitic comments on Twitter.com to send a clear message that Tesla does not endorse such views.
“Neither his wealth nor his technical and business prowess excuse his statements," Braakman said in his statement. "It seems it has only amplified the demons he carries. And it screams that he needs help.” Also talking to CNN, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, dean for leadership studies at the Yale School of Management, had this to say on the matter: “The board has a responsibility to act. He should not be able to use the title of chief executive officer. That should be suspended right away.”
It's hard to tell whether the shareholders are directly aggrieved by Musk's comments, or they simply worry about the impact they might have on their investment. Whatever the case, it's clear some of them regard the CEO as a livewire that, much like the Full Self-Driving Beta, could "do the wrong thing at the worst time." That's not exactly a trait you want in your allegedly self-driving car or your CEO.
It's hard to pinpoint where it all started to go south for Musk, and that's because it was a long and winding process. Most people will point at the more recent Twitter acquisition debacle and everything that followed, but you could just as well go way further back (1,674 days, to be exact), when Elon promised we would have completely autonomous robotaxis making us $30,000 a year, or when he promised fully autonomous cross-country trips in a Tesla (that would be 2,589 days ago).
Have I gone insane? Am I counting the days from every one of Musk's unfulfilled promise? Because if I am, all those measures of looking after my mental health have clearly failed. Well, you'll be relieved to know (but not as relieved as my family) I'm fine, thank you very much for your concern. I just used the work of whoever is behind elonmusk.today, a website that tracks how long it's been since each of the Technoking's promise has failed. It's a valuable tool for putting things into perspective.
The first thing that strikes you is just how many of them there are. I won't go for a count, but let's just say your scrolling finger is going to hurt when you're done. However, it's the second thought that goes through your mind that hits home the hardest: this is, in part, what built Musk's immense wealth.
His recipe for success is simple in principle but obviously a lot more difficult to put in practice - otherwise, we'd all be billionaires. It's a more evolved version of the classic "fake it until you make it" mantra, with the very significant caveat that Tesla did actually make plenty of cars (and, for all their foibles, stupid features, and exaggerated stats, they still have a lot going for them), the best EV charging infrastructure in the U.S., as well as quite a few factories around the world.
At the same time, though, it also made bold claims and set unrealistic deadlines, all in an orchestrated attempt to make the company seem a lot more advanced than the competition, but also a lot more advanced than it really was. The end game was building up the Tesla stock, and if you look even at the current valuation, which is pretty low compared to last year's, you could say the gambit has paid off. So far.
However, there are people who compare Musk's methods of building up the stock of his companies to a Ponzi scheme, and while there are glaring differences (for one, Tesla is selling an actual product), the similarities can be just as striking.
The CEO's main concern has always been finding new investors. With Tesla finding it hard to turn its car-making business profitable, the seemingly only way to support the exceptionally rapid expansion was by constantly overestimating the company's capabilities - whether we're talking technology, production rate or even the vehicle specs themselves, nothing was exempted.
Whenever the due date of any of these commitments was looming close, Elon Musk would come out and make a new, even more outlandish claim. Alternatively, he would push back the deadline (I never heard someone say "next year" more often in my entire life), make an ambiguous statement that could be interpreted either way (but people chose to focus on the version most favourable for Tesla, for some reason), or even reveal a new vehicle.
Tesla's entire history is filled with such moments, but none was probably more blatantly fake than the second-gen Roadster. During the reveal, Musk claimed the four-seats sports car would have a 200 kWh battery pack good for 620 miles (which, as you know, very conveniently rounds up to 1,000 km), all while hitting the 60 mph (97 km/h) benchmark in under two seconds. Did I mention it could also "briefly fly?"
I swear, sometimes you have to sit and wonder whether it's Elon Musk's fault for making these ridiculous claims, or everyone else's for buying a ticket for the hype train and believing them even for a second. To be fair to the man, the one thing he did right was to make sure that, by hook or by crook (and by that, I mean skimping on build quality and after-sales support), Tesla did actually sell cars - and quite a lot of them for a company its age that had to pretty much carve open a niche in the market by itself.
However, all these overly optimistic estimations (you could call them "lies", but after hearing SpaceX describe its rocket blowing up as a "rapid unscheduled disassembly," I realized life is too short for boring and exact descriptions) that are yet to come true after so many years have to come crashing down at some point. It is literally like building a house of cards - the more you add on top, the heavier it gets, and the more strain is put on the foundation.
In Tesla's case, the foundation is its actual business. All the cards Musk has laid on top over the years have helped it to a certain degree, but the company simply can't keep up with the growth needed to sustain its image. There needs to be a change in tactics, and it's obvious at this point that Musk doesn't have any other strategies in his bag.
I find the fact he managed to sabotage Twitter, his main communication platform, quite ironic. The social media platform is far from dead, but ever since he was forced to buy it, it's been one lousy decision after another. However, not even the blue tick debacle can compare to the hugely sensitive situation Musk has put himself recently after seemingly agreeing with an antisemitic post.
I'm sure you know all about it so there's no point in going over it again, especially since it's such a touchy subject. That is precisely why anyone with a little bit of common sense and the knowledge that he's not the holder of the ultimate truth would have steered away from such topics. Not Musk.
Being the owner of Twitter.com automatically puts you under much heavier scrutiny, and since Elon is the kind of guy who likes to let everyone know his companies are him and he is the company, it's only natural that everything he says has a direct repercussion on Twitter itself. In this particular situation, the result was several high-profile companies deciding to cancel their advertising on the social media platform.
For years, it seemed like Musk was the driving force behind Tesla, but the recent events at Twitter.com seem to have opened up more people's eyes over the not so beneficial influence the billionaire can have on a brand. With Tesla, he still carries a lot of credit in the bank, credit that, for all the countless posts, he did not have at Twitter. However, it doesn't take a fortune teller to realize it might all implode over there as well at some point. Tesla is big, yes, but it's not big enough to count itself out of the woods just yet.
It would appear the first signs of worries inside the Tesla camp are beginning to emerge. As per CNN, Jerry Braakman, president of First American Trust and a Tesla shareholder, has asked the company's board of directors to suspend Musk over his perceived antisemitic comments on Twitter.com to send a clear message that Tesla does not endorse such views.
“Neither his wealth nor his technical and business prowess excuse his statements," Braakman said in his statement. "It seems it has only amplified the demons he carries. And it screams that he needs help.” Also talking to CNN, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, dean for leadership studies at the Yale School of Management, had this to say on the matter: “The board has a responsibility to act. He should not be able to use the title of chief executive officer. That should be suspended right away.”
It's hard to tell whether the shareholders are directly aggrieved by Musk's comments, or they simply worry about the impact they might have on their investment. Whatever the case, it's clear some of them regard the CEO as a livewire that, much like the Full Self-Driving Beta, could "do the wrong thing at the worst time." That's not exactly a trait you want in your allegedly self-driving car or your CEO.
Google News