Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

riphitter t1_iu46j92 wrote

I heard recently he didn't even found it. He joined as an investor and then got legal made a cofounder after the fact.

238

SiegeGoatCommander t1_iu5dw0h wrote

Yeah, the contracts the actual founders signed when they sold him Tesla stipulated that he could use the title 'founder,' and they couldn't talk to anyone about it.

122

IQueryVisiC t1_iu7ugaw wrote

Steve Wozniak build the Apple 1 and then with Steve Jobs it became a company. Before Musk Tesla only had a prototype like many electric enthusiasts had in their garage. With Musk it became a company with business plan and sales.

−25

SiegeGoatCommander t1_iu7vkqu wrote

Except Jobs didn't exactly tell Woz to fuck off and make him sign something promising not to talk about inventing the thing

24

ringobob t1_iu5pmmj wrote

As others said, he came in and made a deal with the founders to also call himself a founder, and eventually the other founders left.

They were pretty early, it's not correct to say that Musk was the only driver of innovation in the early days, nor is it correct to say he had nothing to do with an otherwise fully functioning car manufacturer. It's not clear based on what I've read exactly whose idea it was to make their initial effort a performance car, but that decision was key to making electric cars something the public took an interest in, and Musk had a hand in some of the design choices supporting that decision according to other founders.

It's important to understand that Musk had a very real and present role in the early days of Tesla, so dismissing him as a co-founder simply because he came in when the number of employees was already greater than 0 isn't really right or fair, but neither is it right to say he did it all by himself and the other founders did nothing as is implied by many of his fanboys.

If nothing else, then the big takeaway is that you don't want Musk to hold financial control over your idea if you want to continue to be associated with it. Whatever he brings in terms of investment and decision making, his own credit will subsume yours.

79

john_fartston t1_iu7uz8r wrote

yes, if you're going to criticize Elon for his false image criticize the fact that he never mentions the fact that he claims to come from humble beginnings when his father owned an emerald mine growing up

12

TummyDrums t1_iuia3qj wrote

Musk is no doubt a successful businessman. He isn't however, the genius inventor that he portrays himself as. He sees a good idea, buys the company, and funds/expands it. Most of his companies were all existing entities with established ideas before he got involved with them. He's not the innovator himself, he just pays other people to innovate. He'd like you to think its all him, though.

0

NorwayNarwhal t1_iu7fxrn wrote

One of my high school friends is the son of one of the original founders. I would spend every Christmas eve at their house.

Musk wasn’t involved until well after Tesla was already established. They built the roadster before Elon butted in. Literally all he did was buy them out and slap his name on it.

−9

wasdlmb t1_iu7hwej wrote

That's... not true. Elon Musk was the biggest investor and chairman since 2004, less than a year after the company was founded. He became CEO in 2008, a year before the Roadster was released.

7

NorwayNarwhal t1_iu7li4x wrote

The roadster was released well after the first one was built and designed. They built one and sold it for a tremendous amount to build capital, then started a small production run

Edit: I am wrong. Oops. Still gonna insist my friend’s dad was far more instrumental than elon was, but I’m certainly biased

3

KeckyOK t1_iu4tg97 wrote

Twitter is just a repeat. He bought some stock, then moved up to purchasing the company and vacating its CEO position.

..and I guess he's like Edison too, while not robbing Nikola Tesla's inventions directly but pretty much using his name to give an EV company some 'sciency cred'.

The Nikola company tried to do the same thing with EV trucks, but that was just a scam from the very start.

39

Reefer-eyed_Beans t1_iu6c6fz wrote

Nope not at all. You know it's a stretch if you're comparing two people yet saying of one of them, "while not..." doing what the other person was doing.

Edison took credit for inventions that weren't his. Elon Musk invested in a company already named "Tesla"... the "sciency cred" coming from Tesla being one of the inventors of the electric induction motor. There's 0 comparability in these scenarios.

11

dewayneestes t1_iu6l4v4 wrote

I think it’s important to be respectful of the truly amazing technological feat that a Tesla vehicle is. Watch the 8hr takeapart of a wrecked model 3, it’s truly amazing tech. I’m not saying Elon is the reason, but the cars are truly innovative.

7

Hot_Carpenter8959 t1_iu68ju6 wrote

Buying Tesla before they even made a vehicle and turning it into a real car company, staking your whole net worth on it and buying Twitter after it's fully developed are not the same thing.

4

DRY_D3Y t1_iu87upf wrote

But he didn’t buy Tesla before they made the Roadster. He didn’t stake all his net worth on it, not even close to it, not to mention that he had already lost all his money once at learned daddy warbucks will feed into his dumb bullshit over and over again. Elon is nothing but a spoiled idiotic entitled little boy who is currently waking up to the fact that he as amounted to nothing and no one can actually stand him or his unjust fame he just bought

1

Iz-kan-reddit t1_iu5mvy8 wrote

While technically true, Tesla was nothing but a name and an idea at the time.

The company was only a few months old.

7

alilbleedingisnormal t1_iu6hxi9 wrote

The only company Musk built instead of buying was Boring Company and it's idiotic.

7

Voodoo_Masta t1_iu71108 wrote

Not actually true.

−1

alilbleedingisnormal t1_iu74g7n wrote

Is there another company he started that isn't a subway but stupid?

3

TheMisterTango t1_iu75usc wrote

He founded SpaceX in 2002

6

alilbleedingisnormal t1_iu79si8 wrote

Huh! I had heard he bought SpaceX. I still see no reason to fly rich people into space and not leave them there.

5

TheMisterTango t1_iu7abb3 wrote

SpaceX isn’t flying rich people to space, SpaceX has flown something like 20 astronauts to the space station, while doing it for cheaper than nasa could have ever dreamed of doing itself. Plus all of the various other customers that SpaceX has.

12

alilbleedingisnormal t1_iu7bqrx wrote

NASA could but NASA doesn't have to. That's the difference. Musk doesn't have some secret knowledge.

0

AllCingEyeDog t1_iu7u2mr wrote

Without the restrictions of govt red tape, SpaceX is able to land and reuse boosters.

4

TheMisterTango t1_iu99min wrote

He doesn't need to have secret knowledge, contrary to the reddit circlejerk he is just genuinely knowledgeable and involved in the engineering process at SpaceX, and he surrounds himself with world class engineers. Obviously he isn't doing everything himself, but people acting like he is completely uninvolved in his companies is simply an ignorant take.

2

durgadas t1_iu69ewl wrote

Now the "founder" of Twitter, and apparently the actual father of the original Nikola Tesla himself!

The only mystery larger than why we throw cash at this crazy person is why we throw it at any Kardashian.

4

skgody t1_iu5t98m wrote

The company hadn’t really done anything until Elon joined.

2

ArbutusPhD t1_iu7he3r wrote

He initially thought he was going to get to literally milk Tesla, and thereby gain his power.

2

New-Topic2603 t1_iu4v9d7 wrote

Yep that's what he did, it raises questions on all the the claims hes made.

1

bubblesort33 t1_iu6hcf2 wrote

What's actually required to be a real founder? I feel like anyone that comes in before a single product is sold, or the product is even half way done engineer, seems like a founder to me. Or is it actually a legal term that is decided when they apply for a business license?

1