I'm willing to forgive a lot of nutty behavior for the ass kicking he's giving several entrenched industries who stopped innovating.
I won't because I don't think he's "kicking" ass nearly as much as people think (don't get me wrong, I like that both companies have pushed things but I think people are seriously underestimating the hurdles both face, as well as electric cars and rockets in general; I'm happy for their successes but the next steps are even more challenging but people act like oh its just like Apple bringing out a new iterative iPhone). And now he's outright hurting the companies with his antics, and that could mean a lot of trouble if not deal devastating blows to the progress of this stuff. I think its important to try and do something about this early on before it gets to real breaking point.
I'm not a fan of Musk, but I think both companies would be better for him being involved. I want him to get help and get healthy so he can keep them on track. Musk needs to learn how to delegate, and I think its very telling that they're not finding people to really help him out (and I think the problem there is Musk). I actually think he does this more with SpaceX (and why they're currently operating more smoothly, I think the same was true when he was focused on SpaceX and letting Tesla operate more smoothly). He also needs to learn how to operate in his roles in a healthy manner. Its not good for anyone for him to be strung out and being a jackass.
Something else to keep in mind, this is the stuff that we've seen publicly. I guarantee you that he's done worse in private. I think we'll start hearing stories similar to how people operate around Turmp.
Yes. And I work in banking BTW. Go back 20 years ago and banks were extremely hesitant to move towards online services because of the inherent security risks. Now it's commonplace. Thank Paypal.
Paypal was just doing electronic wire transfers but with a focus on the internet. Its hard to call wire transfers revolutionary. And while certainly they had a leg up online, I think you're revising history because eBay bought them to make them the defacto payment method when eBay was taking off.
And according to wiki, they weren't exactly the only game in town:
competed with eBay's subsidiary
Billpoint, as well as
Citibank's c2it,
Yahoo!'s
PayDirect,
Google Checkout, and Western Union's
BidPay service, all of which closed in subsequent years.
I believe there were dozens of online payment platforms at the time, and it was more about situation than anything. Paypal became big because eBay forced it onto people more than anything. And e-commerce was way bigger than Paypal (the reason most died off is because other options made them pointless, heck even Paypal has been worried about being squeezed out after they lost their real advantage).
That's not to say there weren't valid reasons for their success (Paypal was implemented better than many other services, and the eBay buyout was smart), just that I don't find them to be revolutionary as things were already moving that direction. Kinda like with NFC payment setups. Would you call Apple Pay revolutionary? What about Amazon's secondary market (buy/sell used stuff)? Again, that's not to say its not a significant thing, just not revolutionary to me.