

Why Tesla survived and Fisker won't - ChuckMcM
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513151/why-tesla-survived-and-fisker-wont/

======
ChuckMcM
Ok, so the Technology Review guys are hit and miss, but I found this article
pretty insightful. I've ridden in both a Fisker and a Model S and found the
operational difference to be quite noticeable.

But the thing that really struck me about this article was the "design"
question. And I put that in quotes because the guy that designed the Fisker
initially was working for Musk and then bailed on him to do their own car. The
hubris here was stunning but not atypical of what I see in start ups.

The way it works is that a category of product becomes commoditized and then
focused on the design aspects. This happened to cars, engines (diesel or gas),
suspensions, transmissions, all are complex but pretty well known kinds of
technologies. So the people who are the 'stars' at the car company are the
designers. They are the people who put people in your particular Taurus shaped
car vs Ford's version. The bits underneath are just "details."

But when your really being disruptive, the "win" is how it goes together, the
design has to be good but the technology has to be the focus. We saw this once
before in the car market when Honda came in and revolutionized the drive train
in small cars in the 80's. Originally derided as 'gas powered roller skates'
by the driving public, the key was that they could run efficiently on gasoline
for long periods of time with less maintenance. Doing that and keeping things
light was disruptive, the design of the body around the drive train only came
later.

My point is that reading this I thought, "Here is a good example where design
doesn't trump disruptive engineering." and it's important to keep those
examples in mind when deciding how much to invest.

