If someone wins the lottery repeatedly (Zip2, X.com/Paypal, SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, The Boring Company) I'd entertain the possibility that they weren't just 'picking numbers'.
Without commenting on the others, the Wikipedia article for Neuralink seems to say it’s taken a ton of funding but failed to make any big improvements in the science or technology, and without even reaching initial human trials. The Boring Company built “a single-lane underground roadway less than a mile long, driven by conventional Tesla automobiles, constructed at a total cost of $48 million” (see the Wikipedia article for it).
I don’t see how either of those can be considered winning the lottery, to use your phrase.
Neuralink is trying something that amazingly difficult and many medical companies, specially those working in something as complex as operating on the human brain are not expected to launch a product within a year or two.
> The Boring Company
The Boring company if sold today would likely make more money then most lottery winners get.
Thanks for your contributions btw. I don't like Musk, but suggesting he is talentless or just lucky is asinine Reddit-level commenting and it's good to see it called out.
Winning the lottery once increases your ability to win it in the future because you can (if you want) buy more tickets. Success creates conditions for more success in pretty mundane ways.
only Paypal & SpaceX though, the rest may fail, Neuralink & The Boring Company are merely hype at this point. Tesla will face a lot of competition in years to come and now it has no novelty factor.
Every hitherto successful enterprise might fail due to future conditions but Tesla getting us from essentially zero to a competitive mass produced electric car market is already a historic achievement.
Isn't the Chevy volt or the Prius the cars that went from essentially zero to mass production?
Curious about this claim, Tesla introduced the model S and in 2012 it was roughly 25% of the EV market (22k of about 90). For the next two years, EV sales doubled while tesla sales grew by 50%. The next year tesla and overall ev growth by went up by about 50%
Is going from 70k ev to 90k the same as going from zero to mass production? It was for tesla (very much so), but not the overall EV market. Then selling 30k put of 180k the ne xt year, seems like the scaling up is not complet6due to tesla. Though tesla recently is pushing about 2/3 of EV sales and recently was at 75% (source => googled: percent EVs sold in 2022 by brand)
The idea single handedly brought about the EV industry seems not to be supported by this data. Namely the growth in EV sales outpaced the growth of Tesla sales and in this early days Tesla was not an overwhelming percentage of the market (though recently it is).
My inference here is Musk had good timing for market fit, he made a lot more people aware of EVs (cultural change), and he scaled up production to a high mark recently achieved. All of which is commendable. Though the comment of "zero to nothing" applies (from what I see) only to Tesla itself and not the broader EV market (which is still quite an achievement, and the actual broader impacts are as well)
> Isn't the Chevy volt or the Prius the cars that went from essentially zero to mass production?
The Chevy volt never got up to mass production territory as they never broke 25000 per year [1] whereas >100,000 model 3 and model y are each being produced per quarter. [2] That's a respectable mass production volume if not record breaking amongst all cars. The Prius is a hybrid car so it's not in the same category.
> Tesla introduced the model S and in 2012 it was roughly 25% of the EV market (22k of about 90)
The Model S and X are not mass-production models.
> Is going from 70k ev to 90k the same as going from zero to mass production?
They increased the number of EVs produced to truly mass-production volume. The difficulty going from a few thousand per quarter sold at a high price to >100,000s sold at an affordable price is a huge leap.
The tesla sales numbers also include their hybrid offerings?
I suppose it is a matter of opinion whether 25k constitutes "mass production" or not.
Seemingly Tesla did not break that threshold for 5 years. The OP I took to imply that tesla drove production of _all_ EVs from roughly zero to large scale. The data I'm seeing still does not support that claim. Within Tesla, yes, but globally, no.
Eg: While significant, tesla was not more than 20% of global EVs sold (in recent years) [1].
Tesla's are still expensive too? 2023 models look to start at $70k to $110k
It's not clear to me where our apples are turning into oranges since the different delivery numbers do not line up (perhaps hybrid vs not, perhaps pre-order and sold vs built - not sure)
Regardless, the [2] citation says of the response above states: "Clearly, the production and sales ramp in the second half of 2018 is the first big, noticeable bump in Tesla’s output."
The time frame is very significant as it alludes to whether Tesla was the reason for EV growth from zero, or if they are a significant (but not sole) part of a larger trend.
Quick google has 3M EVs sold in 2019, compared to tesla selling 10% of that. The rest of the car industry was not dormant.
I do agree though that going from 1k's to 100k's is a big leap. The fact it is in the same general ballpark as F150s is remarkable. The rub though is that happened over 10 years, mostly over the last 5 and during a period where absent tesla there was still very strong YoY sales growth of EVs
In sum, is Tesla the birth of EVs? No, but it is nonetheless a significant and remarkable part.
