Then there was the naysaying when Apple was first getting into phones. What does Apple know about phones? How can they possibly compete with the likes of Nokia?
Often industries are disrupted by newcomers who aren't constrained by the thinking of the existing players. Yes, Musk can't violate the laws of physics or economics. But the cost structures of existing players aren't always dictated by the fundamentals, but also by their own organizational baggage and structure. Hence, SpaceX can compete effectively with DoD defense contractors hooked on hugely inefficient government contracts. Is it that Boeing or Lockheed can't things as cheaply, or that SpaceX quality has to suffer? Maybe the way the government dictates things get funded and manufactured leads to inefficiencies, like spreading things around congressional districts.
Likewise, for other car companies, the Big Three in particular, they are somewhat constrained by their existing investments, existing unions, and just plain old conservativism and aversion to risk taking.
So maybe Musk will fail utterly. No pain, no gain I say. He also has a chance of succeeding spectacularly.
Example: Many, many naysayers said the idea that Tesla could begin shipping the Model S to customers in 2012 was absurd, that they were naive and didn't understand the complexities of building a vehicle like Detroit does, etc. Well, they just did it.
Before that, everyone said nobody would buy electric vehicles because (a) you can't get them over 100 miles in range, so nobody will want them, and (b) because there is no charging infrastructure. So Tesla just built bigger/better batteries and built a charging infrastructure.
The problem with articles like this is they are just some random guy saying stuff and it doesn't matter to him ultimately if what he is saying is correct.
Every time I see these negative media people pulling the right things down and the wrong things up, I feel these blokes are by design all about increasing entropy (Could be true!). There is no fix for broken media so to speak.
Who would have thought 20 years ago a private company would be reloading the ISS instead of NASA?
Did he conveniently forget about all this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehicle_...
Even if he is were for a "stunning fail", let him fail gloriously and fantastically. It only means he'll be that much better at this next time around.
I'm completely confident in his ability to fail in order to succeed.
IMHO, Musk is a rare entrepreneur because it's obvious he considers all lessons learned, isn't afraid to learn new ones, and carries that wisdom forward into each decision he makes.
With my prejudices being what they are, I'm part of the core target audience for this piece. This piece is, however, an embarrassment even by editorial standards. It consists of sensationalist claims followed by hypothetical straw man arguments("if he thinks x and y then z may happen" - seriously?).
All that being said, Elon Musk is no ordinary entrepreneur and you ignore that at your own peril. I think Wall Street is making a long-term bet that he's going to pull this whole thing off. Has this author not read "The Innovators Dilemma"? This is straight out of the playbook. Capture a small portion of a market largely being neglected by the established players and use it to work into larger and larger pieces of the market, learning and refining as you go.
Saying that Person X will fail because their project/idea is not based in reality is a cliche.
Musk and a lot of other entrepreneurs who can be classified as visionaries, are not bound by reality, simple because reality is bound within the scope of the present. Visionaries aren't concerned with the present.
"She can tell you bout a plane crash, with a gleam in her eyes. They love to cut you down to size."
