Sponsored by The Great Courses Plus. Click on the link in the description to start your
free trial today.
Tesla has been the instigator in the great auto disruption we’re currently watching
play out. They’ve brought one of the lowest cost, high performance electric vehicles to
market in the Model 3. Proven that owning an EV is not only a viable option, but cheaper
to own and operate than a gas car in the long run. In essence, they’ve been a major disruptor
in the automotive industry. I think part of that success stems from how they operate,
which is more like a Silicon Valley tech company instead of an automotive company. And other
new EV companies may follow the same playbook.
And this is where a lot of you will get angry with me again ... because yes ... they have
a lot in common with companies like Apple. As much as some of you may hate Apple, I really
do think Tesla shares many of the same traits. But the comparisons also extend to companies
like Google too. With Apple announcing their new iPhones today, I thought it was worth
taking a look at how Tesla’s EV disruption has similarities to Apple’s smartphone disruption
that happened a decade ago. All I ask is that you hold off on a flame war in the comments
until you hear me out. If you still disagree with my assessment at the end, let loose.
Before I dive in, take a moment and hit the subscribe button and notification bell, so
you don’t miss out on future videos just like this one. I’m Matt Ferrell ... welcome
to Undecided.
Most of the time product and user experience
design is looking at addressing a specific issue, feature, or problem. It’s not uncommon
to have an answer presented as the solution before you’ve even addressed what the problem
is ... or better yet ... what the question even is. In holistic product design you’re
taking a step back and looking at the full picture. Seeing how all of the different
pieces of the product interact and relate. And seeing how a customer’s interactions
with your company and products are affected throughout the experience.
Apple is one of the best companies in the world at doing this. I can feel the rage growing
in some folks out there, but hear me out. Apple has always been an incredibly secretive
company. They try their hardest to prevent any details of products in development from
leaking before they’re ready to announce them. And the vast majority of the time they’re
not announcing a product until it’s ready to ship immediately or within a few weeks.
There’s a couple of good reasons for this. One is surprise and delight. The big reveal
of a new product has a wow factor and garners attention. The other reason, which is more
important, is that it gives them time to iterate, polish, and think through the full experience
of that product. As Steve Jobs is famous for saying:
When you think about focusing, right?
Well, you think focusing is about saying yes. No.
Focusing is about saying no.
You've got to say ... no, no, no ... and when you say no it's going to piss off people.
Focusing is about saying no. And the result of that focus
Is going to be some really great products where the total is much greater than the sum of the parts.
And at WWDC in 2013, Apple put together a great video reiterating that idea. The
entire Apple manta is stated clearly in the video with, “The first thing we ask is what
do we want people to feel?” And, “We simplify, we perfect, we start over, until everything
we touch enhances each life it touches.” This is holistic design in a nutshell.
Tesla’s manta is centered around first principles thinking, which is about breaking down complicated
problems to generate original solutions. Tesla’s existence and success can be mapped pretty
clearly to that principle. And it’s really not far off from holistic design. Both are
beginning with questions rather than the answers. Both are about creating your own theories
and how to apply those to a better product, experience, or manufacturing technique.
Both Apple and Tesla design their products and operations with the full product life
cycle in mind from manufacturing to disposal. Apple rarely takes parts off the shelf from
suppliers. A good example is in recent years is how Apple brought processor design in house.
Their A series of mobile processors are among the fastest available today. And by bringing
it in house, they can custom tailor their silicon to their product features and software
needs. Other mobile phone makers are using off the shelf parts with features that are
meant to cover a broad spectrum of needs. The end result is an iPad Pro that uses less
power than a typical laptop, but still beats the performance of a majority of laptops on
the market. iPhone’s often have smaller batteries than their competition, but will
last as long. This comes down to the tight optimization that Apple is able to accomplish
between their hardware and software.
Tesla designed their own battery pack and cooling system instead of using third party
suppliers with more generic, ready-made parts. One outcome of that is the super bottle, which
you may have seen Sandy Monroe talk about on Sean Mitchell’s recent interview.
It's more than that. The super bottle is a great example of how the normal automative companies don't work together and Tesla does.
That super bottle crosses many lines that you can't cross here.
If I'm in charge of engine cooling or battery cooling.
I don't want nothing to do with cooling the cabin.
And yet we've got the motor cooling ... the battery cooling ... and electronics ... and electronics.
And all going through one little bottle that's got some clever
Ball valves that open and close to make sure everything is getting heated or that everything is getting cooled to where it needs to be.
So I'm taking something that I would have a pile ... like this ... of bits and pieces.
And I've got this super bottle. I mean ... I.... I... I...
We all thought that was the best thing in the whole damn car.
Tesla has also designed their own self-driving computer instead of continuing to use an off
the shelf system from Nvidia or another company. This helps to make them a master of their
own destiny. Reducing their dependence on a third party supplier for a core piece of
technology means that they won’t be held back in rolling out a new product or feature
because that suppliers hardware isn’t yet capable of what they need it to do. And Tesla
is able to tailor the silicon and software to complement each other and achieve incredible
efficiencies.
Google may have started as a search and ad
company, but they’ve always been an artificial intelligence company under the hood. Using
machine learning and algorithms to figure out relationships between websites and content
in order to surface the most relevant search query. Or machine learning to put just the
right ad, in front of the right person, at the right time. Google Now parsing through
your web history, emails, and calendar, to figure out what notifications and reminders
to display on your Android phone when you start your day. And right here on YouTube,
figuring how what videos you are most likely to be interested in watching with suggestions
on your home screen or along the side of videos just like this one. They are an artificial
intelligence company through and through.
The head of Google Now has said:
“You want to pick problems that are hard for humans, and easy for machines, not the
other way around. It’s about making the technology do the heavy lifting for you, rather
than doing it yourself.”[3] -Aparna Chennapragada
But unlike the holistic design approach, Google tends to look at technology and features first,
and then see if there’s a product that can come from those breakthroughs. There’s no
better example of that then Google Glass.[4] There was a product that had some amazing
technology, but if you asked a simple question of the average consumer, “what problem does
this solve and why do I need it,” they’d come up empty. There’s a graveyard of half-baked
Google products over the past decade that resulted from the technology first, product
second mentality. Google Buzz, Google Wave, Google Talk, Google Nexus Q, Google +, and
Allo.[5] And those are just a few.
On one hand the “fail fast, fail often, but always fail forward” mentality that
drives much of silicon valley, can bring about rapid change. You learn what works and doesn’t
work and quickly change direction.
How does this tie into Tesla? On the surface Tesla looks like a car company, but they’re
really an energy company driven by software. They’re heavily invested in AI and machine
learning to enhance their products, with the obvious one being auto pilot and self driving.
Tesla’s Autonomy Investor Day event walked everyone through their approach to computer
vision and the exponential growth of machine learning systems in autonomous driving. The
end result is a product that could make cars an appreciating asset because the car you
own could be earning you money as part of a ride sharing network.
“Buying a car today is an investment into the future. I think the most profound thing
is that if you buy a Tesla today, I believe you are buying an appreciating asset — not
a depreciating asset.” - Elon Musk[6]
They’re using machine learning in their Energy products too.
Tesla developed its own software in-house to monitor, control and monetize Megapack
installations ... Autobidder, Tesla’s machine-learning platform for automated energy trading. Tesla
customers have already used Autobidder to dispatch more than 100 GWh of energy in global
electricity markets. And, just as Tesla vehicles benefit from continued software updates over
time, Megapack continues to improve through a combination of over-the-air and server-based
software updates.[7]
And that brings me to the constant software updates that Tesla brings to all of their
products. Much like Google, Tesla is constantly tweaking and adjusting their systems and features
they put in front of their customers. As soon as a feature hits a certain level of readiness,
it’s rolled out for everyone to start using right away.
Apple overturned the music industry with the
iPod and iTunes. And then they did it again with the iPhone and the mobile phone market.
Steven Sinofsky, the former president of the Windows Division at Microsoft, wrote a great
article in 2014 titled, “The Four Stages of Disruption.”[8] Those stages almost read
like the stages of grief when it comes to the incumbent being disrupted. And you can
see that the pattern fits what we’re seeing today in the auto industry.
Stage 1: Disruption of Incumbent - The disrupter introduces a new product with
a distinct point of view. - The incumbent discounts the disrupters product
as irrelevant to existing customers.
When Apple released the iPhone, the reaction from the phone industry leaders should sound
familiar to what we’re hearing today.[9]
”There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share.
No chance.” - Steve Balmer, Microsoft “We've learned and struggled for a few years
here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this
out. They're not going to just walk in.” - Ed Colligan, Palm
“It’s kind of one more entrant into an already very busy space with lots of choice
for consumers. But in terms of a sort of a sea-change for BlackBerry, I would think that’s
overstating it.” -Jim Balsillie, Blackberry
Sound familiar? Like Ford Europe’s CEO, Steven Armstrong, mocking Tesla only being
able to produce 7,000 cars a week.[10] Or Bob Lutz, former GM CEO, saying that Tesla
is “heading for the graveyard.”[11] And that we all just need to wait for the big
auto companies to step in and start producing EVs.
Stage 2: Rapid linear evolution - The disrupter rapidly adds new features
and capabilities after gaining traction with early adopters.
- The incumbent begins to compare their full-featured product to the disrupted product to show deficiencies.
Tesla has been rapidly improving their manufacturing process to reduce costs; beginning to upgrade
their Supercharger network to even faster charging speeds; and rolling out new features
to the fleet, which will ultimately culminate in self-driving. Meanwhile, we have companies
like Toyota creating ads touting their “self-charging” electric vehicles (a.k.a. hybrid cars).[12]
Or Lexus trying to hit slow charging times.[13] Or BMW’s “Wait or Drive” ad campaign.[14]
Stage 3: Appealing convergence - The disrupter sees opportunities to acquire
broader customer base by appealing to slow movers.
- The incumbent considers cramming some element of disruptive features into existing product
line to show they can keep up with trends. This is the stage I think we’re in right
now. I think you could argue that the new Tesla Insurance is a part of trying to capture
slower adopters. Same with the upgraded Supercharger speeds and new locations. The current cars
that Tesla are making can go toe-to-toe with the competition, but they’re continuing
to push forward with motors that can last one million miles. And it’s looking like
Tesla may be on the cusp of a battery pack that’s rated to last one million miles,
too.[15] These kinds of advances push an EV from going toe-to-toe with an internal combustion
car, to blowing right past them on the cost and maintenance fronts. This is the kind of
thing that will pull in the slow movers.
And on the side of the incumbents, you have pretty much every car company in the world
having announced some portion of their fleet moving towards EVs. Most of the 2020 models
and beyond. Even Toyota.[16]
Stage 4: Complete reimagination - New entrants to the market can benefit from
all the disrupters product has demonstrated. - The incumbent is too late and goes into
retreat.
As I said, I think we’re somewhere around stage 3 right now, so there aren’t good
examples here yet. We’re just now starting to see new, from the ground up EVs hitting
the market that can compete with Tesla’s offerings, like the Porsche Taycan. And we
have entries coming from other new auto manufactures like Rivian and Byton. The true reimagination
of the industry has yet to take shape, but I’m betting that it’s autonomous cars.
The cars we’re seeing made today still resemble traditional cars, but with a different power
source. The power of computers and software will completely upend cars as we know them.
We’ll start to see cars without steering wheels. Seating that’s tailored more to
comfort and entertainment than to operating a vehicle. And with robot taxis we’ll see
fewer and fewer people wanting to own a car in the first place.
And if you’d like to learn more about disruption, check out The Great Courses Plus. Where you
can get access to incredible lectures and courses from top professors from Ivy League
and other great universities around the world. Experts from places like National Geographic,
The Smithsonian, and the Culinary Institute of America. You’ll have unlimited access
to over 11,000 video lectures about anything that interests you from science, math, history,
literature, or even how to cook, play chess, or become a better photographer. In my case,
courses like Critical Business Skill for Success where I learned more about industry disruption,
like Netflix’s domination of the video rental market and how disruptive innovation is often
the hardest to respond to. To support Undecided and get access to The Great Courses Plus,
click on the link in the description to start your free trial today. Thanks to The Great
Courses Plus and to all of you for supporting the channel.
Setting aside what you think about Apple or Google, I think it’s pretty clear that Tesla
isn’t a car company. They’re a technology and energy company. They approach producing
cars like most technology companies approach writing software ... including their own manufacturing
process and car improvements. They don’t have model years on their cars, and they roll
out new features and improvements as they’re ready. It’s treating hardware improvements
like software improvements. Nothing like a traditional car company. This is one of the
reasons they’ve been so effective in disrupting the auto industry. The rapid, Google-like,
approach to development makes them extremely nimble and quick to adapt. Their first principles
thinking is leading to a better product, much like Apple’s holistic design approach.
Okay, you can re-engage your Apple or Google comparison hatred. What do you think? Do you
think Tesla has a lot in common with Apple and Google? Are there other companies that
you think are a closer fit? Jump into the comments and let me know.
If you liked this video, be sure to give it a thumbs up and share with your friends because
it really helps the channel. There are some other ways you can support the channel too.
Check out my SFSF Shop for some cool Tesla, Space X, science, and Undecided shirts. There’s
also other links in the description for some great gear and discounts.
And as always, an extra big thank you to all of my Patreon supporters. Your support is
really helping to make these videos possible. Be sure to check out my Patreon page for additional
details about joining the crew.
And if you haven’t already, consider subscribing and hitting the notification bell to get alerts
when I post a new video. And as always, thanks so much for watching, I’ll see you in the
next one.