Tesla is a Battery Company - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jeremyrwelch.com/tesla-is-a-battery-company <comment><USER2> If Tesla executes, they are going to be the leading company in a number of industries, of which battery technology and manufacturing is one of them. They are also leaders in direct sales, JIT manufacturing, motor design, any one of which is a disruptive innovation channel they could monetize, all in the service of building electric cars. Tesla is an energy company, a battery company, a car company, etc, just as GE or any other innovator ends up in many segments. What they are is a nascent Multi-business, Multi-national company that the market is betting (based on the stock price) is going to be able to be a global force. A lot of publicly traded companies are single-business companies that derive most of their revenues from a domestic operation. The few companies that manage to become multinationals have this outsized influence because they tend to drive massive revenues, earnings, and markets caps. The correlation between operating in multiple business areas and being a massive multinational is a direct relationship, because disruptive businesses always reach a saturation point. Businesses like Tesla that set out to disrupt industries that represent significant portions of GDP will naturally need to move into multiple markets in order to execute their strategies, because they need to disrupt or create a sequence of disruptive or creative strategies in order to reach that saturation point (natural market size).

I love Elon for the fact that he thinks of his businesses on a planetary basis, and if you consider the point, you'll see he's actually executing Tesla in multiple markets simultaneously, and essentially going directly from startup to Multinational, and skipping the domination of a single category. He knows that if he doesn't, he's going to face stiff competition from entrenched companies and it's likely he'll lose his advantage. But by tight control of the supply line businesses, and a few strategic relationships with existing multinationals, he's able to elevate Tesla into a multi-business, multi- national organization in record time.

Sure, they're a battery company, but what they really are is an organization that's shooting for the moon and actually executing at that scale. Simple incredible to watch.

<comment><USER3> In what sense is Tesla a leader in JIT manufacturing?

Do you know how manufacturing takes place at all those other car companies in Germany, Japan, and South Korea? I can not talk about the Asian-based companies, but I know for sure that the manufacturing plants in Germany are very ahead. Because they produce different models at same time on the same track. Each and every car is different in every aspect. In Europe it is very common that you order your car they way you like it and do not buy the one that dealer has in its parking lot. You order to your specification and the option lists are huge compared to the one from Tesla.

Tesla is having only one Model with limited different features and many same parts from Ford, Audi, Mercedes, Bosch and others and still is unable to keep up with delivery as you can see from their latest IR reports.

BTW, the Tesla plant is build with German technology by German companies. Just to remind you.

<comment><USER4> The claim about leading JIT does seem a bit ridiculous, given JIT manufactoring grew out of the Toyata Production System[1] which encompases Kaizen, Kanban and similar.

All of which was pioneered decades before Tesla existed.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Production_System](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Production_System)

<comment><USER3> I learned that as Toyotism.

EDIT: Another therm for that is "Lean manufacturing" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing)

<comment><USER5> Lean manufacturing works right up to the point where one of your vendors gives you a bad part. Your choice is to either shut down a line or have excess backup supplies at which point there's no need to have been lean.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure how it helps to have a backup supplies of bad parts?

It should be obvious that quality control across the entire supply chain is vital to make lean work -- and indeed that is how Toyota and others does it: They work very closely with suppliers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Musk has previously said in an interview that Li-Ion batteries were at $600 / kwh, but when he looked at the component and manufacturing costs they were at $100 / kwh. Somehow the entire supply chain has piked up a lot of overhead, and he realized it would be possible to reduce that. At those prices, Model-S battery pack costs are between $36k and $51k!

When I realized that, I came to conclusion that Tesla Motors could be viewed as merely a stepping stone on the way to building a Gigafactory.

When demand for batteries is low, a low-volume battery factory has to share its suppliers with other clients, and those suppliers will price their risks and profits into the deal, multiple times along the chain. On the other hand if you have enough volume to justify having the entire manufacturing cycle under one roof, from ore to ready packages, all those markups go out the window. It wouldn't surprise me to see overhead going from the staggering 500% to a more moderate 50%, but only as long as there is enough demand for all of those batteries. Which is why you need cars - they consume a lot of energy.

By now it's pretty much certain that Tesla will be the first to build a Gigafactory. The interesting bit is whether Musk figured out a way to make sure no one has the ability to build a competing Gigafactory and commoditize the business. Right now only Tesla itself can generate enough demand, so they are pretty safe. If Musk can convince the other car manufacturers to buy batteries from Tesla, it will kill the incentive for anyone else to build a competing Gigafactory for a long time. So at the least Musk needs to appear non-threatening to other car manufacturers, and perhaps the best move would be to split battery division away from Tesla Motors completely.

<comment><USER8> You use "Gigafactory" as if it was an established word. It isn't. It it the name of Tesla's battery factory being built in Nevada.

<comment><USER9> It's so named because its planned capacity is measured in gigawatt-hours of batteries per year. "A gigafactory" to refer to any factory of that size is a reasonable term to use.

<comment><USER10> Couldn't you just measure the capacity in directly in Watts instead of Watt hours / year?

<comment><USER9> Certainly, and you could measure battery capacity in joules, and... well, for some reason we've standardized on weird units for these things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't think this is a revelation to anyone who has been paying attention?

This seems to have been the dominant hypothesis for a long, long time, and is always what justified Tesla's early (very) red activities. They were a battery company using luxury automobiles to fund battery R&D.

<comment><USER12> >They were a battery company using luxury automobiles to fund battery R&D.

This seems questionable to me. I just don't see lithium-ion powering electric cars in an affordable or usable fashion. The density isn't great and after 4-5 years the battery pack wears out, making your $30-50k battery investment disappear. There's no resale value on a battery that can't even hold 30% of its original charge. Musk's solar city shenanigans are cute, but not a lot of people are moving to solar when electricity is so cheap.

Tesla just never got the battery breakthrough it needed and it will probably never become a hybrid engine company. All this talk of "just wait until Musk does this or does that" has been the same excuse we've been hearing for years. It hasn't materialized, at least for Tesla.

$300m losses in 12 months is scary. $100m loss in the past quarter is just bad. Musk can build this factory, but he can't improve lithium-ion tech nor can he raise the price of gas. If gas is under $6 or so, there's very little incentive to buy a pure electric. Fanboyism aside, Tesla just looks like a mess and making excuses about how its really not a car company stinks of desperation. Tesla is pretty much a failed company. Unless they pivot to hybrid engines and start selling a lower cost car, they'll just continue to be the toy of the idle rich.

<comment><USER13> Wow, you're pulling out some numbers that seem very unfounded here. You also seem to be VERY anti-tesla as seen in your other posts in this thread.

Can you show me where you have seen hard evidence of battery packs "wearing out" after 4-5 years? Also, please define wearing out as there are different meanings to that.

Contrary to what you have said in this thread the battery life has actually been significantly better than expected ([http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2015/0219/How- much...](http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2015/0219/How-much-will- Tesla-Model-S-battery-life-decrease-over-time))

Also, saying the only incentive of buying an electric car to save money is ignoring a lot of other factors in the word.

<comment><USER12> In practice we're seeing ~25% loss of capacity at 40k miles in LEAF real world testing. 30% loss at 50k miles is the accepted norm. Capacity goes down annually after that. It seems that some cars are doing better, but play cars owned by the rich that get very few miles like the early Tesla sportscars. Real world daily-drivers like the LEAF experience the exact decay that was predicted. Lithium-ion isnt some new hot tech we don't understand. We understand it very well.

[http://www.torquenews.com/2250/how-long-will-electric- vehicl...](http://www.torquenews.com/2250/how-long-will-electric-vehicle- batteries-last-tesla-s-roadster-could-be-guide)

Americans replace their car every 6 years now. You may have 30-50% capacity at year 6, depending on a lot of factors. This is unacceptable considering the anemic range of a new battery. EV means losing almost all your car's value after 3-5 years. High trade-in values we enjoy now will be lost as the majority of the cost of the vehicle will be its battery. These batteries will fill landfills and be an environmental disaster.

The current "fix" is just to build the battery replacement cost into the warranty. So now your car is more expensive. Warranty claims now become a legal struggle over what is faulty or not. Nissan claims 70% battery power is non-faulty. That means your 75m LEAF range is now ~50m. My gas car gets that in a gallon and a half.

>You also seem to be VERY anti-tesla as seen in your other posts in this thread.

Its a 12 year old company that has done nothing but burn money. They have no mature product on the horizon and their promises of making a middle-class cheap EV with great range and durability are just not in the realm of technology. The stock has been on a decline since mid last year and they have a celebrity CEO who is good at PR and gimmicks but not delivering affordable vehicles.

>Also, saying the only incentive of buying an electric car to save money

This is the only motivator for mass market acceptance. The idle rich love the acceleration of that $100k car, but that doesn't matter to someone who makes half or a third that in a year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't get this article. The battery in a Tesla Model S is literally a huge array of Panasonic flashlight batteries. It is an off-the-shelf catalog item you can order from Panasonic. Admittedly, you should probably have prior arrangements before ordering millions.

The central insight of the Tesla founders was that people really will pay $85000 for an electric car. The other auto makers didn't believe that.

<comment><USER15> _> The battery in a Tesla Model S is literally a huge array of Panasonic flashlight batteries. It is an off-the-shelf catalog item you can order from Panasonic._

Um, no. Viewing the battery of a Tesla Model S as just a big flashlight battery misses the whole point of what Tesla is doing.

A flashlight battery does one thing: it discharges energy until it's empty. Even an ordinary rechargeable household battery only does two things: it recharges, and then it discharges.

The battery in a Tesla Model S, OTOH, is continuously _computing_ whether to charge or discharge, how much to charge or discharge, what its current state of charge is, how to manage charging and discharging to maximize its life, etc. And it has to do this in a constantly changing environment--a car that is traveling at varying speeds over varying types of roads. (Doing it for a home battery is actually easier, in a way, because there is less variability in the load.)

This sort of technology is absolutely critical if batteries are going to become significant in our energy budget on a large scale. The energy storage medium of the battery is only a tiny piece of the whole picture.

<comment><USER16> > The battery in a Tesla Model S, OTOH, is continuously computing whether to > charge or discharge

Is it? I would imagine the software does that. The battery really is a large array of commodity batteries made by panosonic. Tesla is doing the gigafactory for vertical integration and to bolster it's own supply. Obviously, they have done a lot of innovation around the pack in terms of heat distribution and cell construction, as well as the management system. The innovation is really about the macro-cell construction and the software to manage the array. On a micro-level it is just a bunch of commodity batteries wites into small cells, that make up a large cell array.

<comment><USER15> _> I would imagine the software does that._

Obviously the lithium-ion cells themselves aren't doing the computation; software is. But the software should be considered part of the "battery" as a system. Without the software the lithium-ion cells are useless for this application, and indeed for any application more dynamic than a flashlight. So the software development that Tesla has done is essential for making batteries viable in the sorts of applications that people want to use them for to help solve our energy problems.

<comment><USER17> would "realtime battery management software company" be a better fit?

<comment><USER15> Possibly, but as I understand it, the software is tightly coupled to the battery hardware; if you were to swap in a different kind of cell, or even the same kind of cell but from a different manufacturer, you would have to rework much of the software. That's why I think it's better to view the storage cells and the software as a single integrated "battery" system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> They're also a software company. I was recently shocked to hear that ~60% of Tesla employees are involved in software engineering, versus a normal car company at around 2%.

Source: [http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-tesla- multiply...](http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-tesla-multiply- stock-worlds-most-important-car-company-2015-3)

</comment><comment><USER19> Also consider:

\- solar city benefits from increased storage capabilities of batteries. Solar panels (a capital investment) generate higher returns when they also power buildings at night.

\- National electric grids benefit from increased battery storage because they can store electricity for hours after it's actually generated.

\- tesla is building a network of superchargers all connected to the electric grid

\- tesla has arguably more at stake than any company in battery R&D. Few if any companies are as motivated as tesla for battery tech to improve.

My hypothesis is that Elon Musk is architecting Tesla as the "cloud" of electricity generation, storage, and transfer. He is building the ultimate smart grid. Electric cars are a nice excuse to develop the requisite network effects and initial momentum before expanding to other verticals. He's going from a red ocean to a blue ocean. [1]

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy)

<comment><USER20> How on earth can a strategy centered around generating, storing and transmitting electricity be considered blue-ocean?

<comment><USER21> Well, the innovation is really about storing electricity. We've been generating and transmitting electricity for over a century now.

Once we can store electricity (in batteries, for example), then intermittent power sources, like solar panels (and also wind turbines) become much more valuable.

Energy storage is a very inconsequential market right now, but if smart-grid- connected Teslas really take off, then they become important not only to the automotive industry, but also the electricity and energy industries.

<comment><USER22> Once solar cells hit a tipping point, storage becomes one of the best businesses to be in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm sort of curious how the economics of this will end up working out from a consumer's perspective. Lithium ion's big advantage was energy density -- you can store a lot of juice for not much mass or volume, which is a really big deal for portable electronics or cars... for a stationary home installation, though, much less so. Having a giant thing sitting in your backyard might be okay if it was high-capacity and cheap, and it seems like there might be other contenders besides Li-ion that might do well given the different set of operating constraints that stationary storage would have. Maybe other battery chemistries, or maybe kinetic energy storage devices like evacuated flywheels, compressed air, etc....

<comment><USER24> Energy density is still important for home installations, especially if you have ambitions of retro fitting on a wide scale. If you could get to a situation where solar + battery was cheaper than a grid connection, a majority of the population will still not buy it if it's something which will require a half tonne object to be installed on a specially constructed concrete plinth, brought on a lorry with a crane system, and taking up 2m x 1m of space. Far, far better if it can be within the size and weight range of a normal white box utility, for instance the kind of freezer that people put in their garage.

<comment><USER25> In the rural or suburban US, it is very common for homes to have large propane tanks for heating and cooking, due to them being too far away from supply lines for natural gas. The tank is typically much larger than your example.

Not to mention essentially all new homes have central A/C with one of the heat exchangers "installed on a specially constructed concrete plinth." We have plenty of space; it's simply not an issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Article fails to mention that Tesla has actually stated that it intends to market a home battery and that many believe this is the product that Elon referenced recently.

</comment><comment><USER27> Interesting to consider --- is there enough lithium in the world to support this stuff?

[http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/)

<comment><USER28> Can't lithium batteries be recycled?

<comment><USER29> Yes.

[http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mythbusters- part-3-recycling...](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mythbusters- part-3-recycling-our-non-toxic-battery-packs)

[http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop- battery-r...](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery- recycling-program)

<comment><USER30> Thanks for these. The second link notes that the lithium battery recycling is profitable. Do you know of any links to more detailed economics of lithium battery recycling? I'm trying to estimate the cost of Li batteries in a fully recycling system at equilibrium, and I'm not finding any detailed cost/revenue breakdowns. Thank you.

<comment><USER29> No, sorry. I'd be interested as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Of course. But it's not as though Tesla's cars are just useless, uninteresting husks. They are also a very competent car company, especially for being so young. But their core competency is definitely in batteries.

</comment><comment><USER32> What's wrong with being more than one thing. They are shaking up A LOT about how we currently think about the ``energy'' models. I think batteries are going to do wonder for countries that don't have a ``grid''.

The coolest thing to me about Tesla is the car is becoming decoupled from what powers the car. It's still electricity but if my power provider was to switch to nuclear, solar, people on bicycles, or coal It would be transparent to me.

</comment><comment><USER33> Don't ignore the other battery companies.

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/2900452/foxconn-partners- with...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2900452/foxconn-partners-with-chinas- tencent-on-smart-electric-cars.html)

      Foxconn hopes to build cars priced under US$15,000,
      according to Gou. The contract manufacturer already
      develops electric car batteries, which he said were in demand.

Look out, Tesla.

Being that the batteries are the expensive part of an electric car, Foxconn could get to the mass market before Tesla, and possibly set back the market if the experience sucks.

<comment><USER34> Does Foxconn have much expertise in manufacturing batteries?

<comment><USER35> Maybe not as much, but Apple has been "poaching" Tesla's engineers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Also, wasn't Musk going to do a phd studying batteries before deciding that the internet was a better move for him at the time?

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't know about this. Source?

<comment><USER36> [https://www.iop.org/careers/working- life/profiles/page_57723...](https://www.iop.org/careers/working- life/profiles/page_57723.html)

 _How did your career progress from there?

I was offered a place at Stanford University to do postgraduate research into high-energy-density capacitors. But then the Internet came along, and I wanted a piece of the action. _

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks! added it to the post

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Only as much as Apple was a HDD company with the release of the first iPod.

Yes, their underlying hardware was necessary for the product to be revolutionary, and it was also something that no one else could produce at the time.

But, like Tesla, Apple added a layer of design and marketing that made for a revolutionary UX, as well.

So I agree that Tesla is a battery company, but I don't think that that makes them less of a revolution for the car industry.

<comment><USER38> As Apple has never made hard drives, calling them a hard drive company makes zero sense.

The hard drive in the iPod was never the most interesting component, or the differentiator from the rest of the market. Tesla's battery is. The hard drive in the iPod is like the wheels on a Tesla. It's useless without them, but they're a completely replaceable commodity and has no bearing on the success of the product

<comment><USER39> The battery in the Model S is an array of commodity Panasonic cells.

<comment><USER40> What part of "tesla is going to build their own batteries" do you not understand?

<comment><USER41> Sounds like the headline of this article should have used the future tense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > Tesla is a Battery Company

Too narrow. Tesla is a electrical energy storage and distribution company. Tesla has over 400 Supercharger stations.

I think this quote sums it up:

"I see us more as an energy innovation company, at our core, than even as a car company."

</comment><comment><USER43> If true, this puts Tesla and Solar City in complementary positions, and perhaps on track to become the same company under Musk. Solar City tech generates the electricity, and Tesla batteries will store it.

</comment><comment><USER44> And McDonalds is a Real Estate company.

<comment><USER45> Yep, in a very tight race with CBRE for top spot. I wonder if there's a place to find sick information, like the Forbes richest list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Tesla is not a battery company until they actually start manufacturing batteries.

</comment><comment><USER47> Just like how Apple is a chip fabrication company? I don't think so. Tesla was the first company to introduce OTA updates, something unheard of in the car industry. So to call them a battery company sounds very patronizing to me.

<comment><USER12> Except Apple is successful and Tesla is not. When articles like these come out for a company bleeding money its something to worry about. I think its obvious the lithium-ion just doesn't have the lifespan and density to replace cars. At least when gas is under $6 a gallon. After 4-5 years the resale value of that $30k battery pack is non-existant as its begining to fail. We're seeing this a lot with hybrid sales where the car's battery pack has a fraction of its capacity. The makes the motor work harder, but with a pure EV car there is no gas motor to take up the slack.

I have very low hopes for EVs. Even if Tesla lowered battery prices by 20%, which would be impressive, they're still extremely expensive and still wear out quickly. They make sense when gas is crazy expensive, but its not, especially with all this investment in shale oil.

I imagine the future will have more efficient hybrids and perhaps Tesla will migrate to a hybrid company if they want to stay alive. 100k for a range anxiety inducing EV with a low resale value after x years due to its $50k battery pack wearing out is not the vision of the future here.

<comment><USER47> Do they have to be profitable? Yes. Will they move to manufacturing hybrids? Probably. But they're definitely not a battery company. At least not yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Wrong. Tesla is a _distribution_ company. Cars and batteries are commodities, more or less. Corporations are now extremely efficient at copying and commoditizing their competitors' innovations - just look at how fast the android ecosystem popped up alongside iPhone - so technological advancements are not the real source of long term value but merely the temporary advantage needed to be first to a market and set up _network effects_.

EBay, for instance, was there at the right time to take recent technology advancements, set up a network-effect marketplace and milk it for, oh, 2 decades. They stopped being a technology company a long time ago.

So how does this relate to Tesla? Answer: The supercharging stations. If Tesla owns the most charging stations then EV buyers have a good reason to buy Tesla over a hypothetical Ford or Toyota EV, putting Tesla at a major advantage. Eventually it'll be on Ford and Toyota to bet the farm on a massive supercharger network of their own and launch an EV to compete against Tesla's entrenched domination of the marketplace. Right now, Tesla is in a fleeting moment of technological and branding advantage which they are correctly leveraging to quickly set up their charging network.

It's a lot like telcos bragging about their coverage networks. Eventually all the (surviving) car companies will be doing something similar, running TV ads about their charging station maps.

Companies are either A) marketing companies or B) distribution companies or a blend of both.

Nike is a marketing company that happens to sell shoes. Ditto Taco Bell and cheap Mexican food.

Amazon, Akamai, Google and Facebook are distribution companies --- they own the network or marketplace.

Disney (mostly distribution), American Airlines (mostly distributiom) Walmart (mostly distribution) and Apple (mostly marketing/branding, but appstore and itunes are distribution powerhouses) are a little of both.

Edit: Nielsen, Google are distribution comapnies. They have prohibitively large or complicated information ingestion systems set up to and then resell the results.

Newspapers and TV are too, but their distribution monopolies are crumbling.

Interesting. That means solar advancements are very bad for Tesla. If people don't need to stop and charge, then the distribution network is worthless.

<comment><AUTHOR> I generally agree with your categorization, but I would be more specific that Tesla is both a Battery distribution AND marketing company. EVs existed prior to Tesla, but they were the first company to identify and correctly serve the high end market with the Roadster.

My company Chrg specializes in charging infrastructure. Note that the Superchargers you mentioned actually use specially designed Tesla batteries, which are precursors to the Home battery product Tesla will likely be launching soon.

Solar advancements are a great thing for Tesla. Once power is captured via solar panels, it will need to be stored – preferably in Tesla batteries.

<comment><USER49> finally, found the business connection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Tesla's goal is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. They want (a) to see as many electric cars on the road as fast as possible and (b) make a lot of money.

B is required to perfect the product -- which serves A better than anything else.

I think the 'Apple way' is most efficient: selling the whole package and making it so good, that people happily pay a lot.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure how cars will ever constitute "sustainable transport". Less unsustainable than carbon fuelled cars, maybe. And that's a big maybe, given batteries, power generation etc.

But I suppose there's not that much money in trying to sell bicycles...

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> >In the NY Metro area, it's Con Edison

That is a rather unfortunate (or rather appropriate) name for a company named after Edison.

<comment><USER29> Especially in French.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I can't see Musk trying to build a battery company as his primary focus. That's not exactly a world-changing life goal (well, for him. I'd be happy with that). That's like saying that Apple is a chip company because their chips are central to efficiency.

The battery might _currently_ be the most important single component of an EV, but there is no guarantee that will be true in five/ten/twenty years. The car is more than just a mechanism to increase scale. You don't beat Musk by making a better battery company. You'd better find a way to beat this:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-tesla-model-s-is- consumer...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-tesla-model-s-is-consumer- reports-top-pick--for-the-second-year-in-a-row-2015-2)

(The word 'battery' is not even mentioned in the article. Tesla could have less battery life but still win.)

Again, similar to Apple, Tesla found a point of advantage and will own it. The landscape will change and so will Tesla's efforts at building or maintaining an advantage against some very powerful companies.

<comment><USER53> Batteries may appear quite humble, but they are at the core of just about every technological advancement we have at the minute. Cars, laptops, phones, wearable devices.. they all depend on batteries. At the minute battery life is a real bottleneck for us. We are turning into a nation that plans their life around moving from charging station to charging station. Batteries are heavy and they don't last that long. The next truly world changing advancement is going to have to involve making access to energy much less heavy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Having a "Tesla battery pack" at your home is more than just handling grid fluctuations. What if the battery pack can act as a supercharger for your car? It's like having a tank of gas in your garage all the time.

<comment><USER55> > _It 's like having a tank of gas in your garage all the time._

And how many people care to have a tank of gas in their garage all the time, even though the idea is completely feasible today?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Selling batteries def have helped them with keeping the lights on. Not sure if many remember but Tesla was about to go under water at some point before cutting a deal with this German car company to sell them batteries.

</comment><comment><USER57> The article assumes that car batteries will feed into the grid. Tesla seems to think that won't be the case, car batteries need to be secured against harsh outdoor conditions and have tougher charge cycle limits.

<comment><AUTHOR> Tesla deploys a large battery product at all of their Supercharger locations. These batteries are built to withstand harsher weather conditions, and will likely form the basis for a home battery product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Elon Musk: Evangelist

[http://www.thegadflyreview.com/elon-musk- evangelist/#.VRyqe_...](http://www.thegadflyreview.com/elon-musk- evangelist/#.VRyqe_nF-So)

</comment><comment><USER59> Except we need an exponential leap in battery technology.

These 1% per year improvements are going to take forever to get us better EVs

<comment><USER10> But 1% a year IS exponential.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Tesla is no more a battery company than Amazon is a shipping company.

<comment><USER61> Every company needs a platform to attack other markets and industries from. Build fast and break into other accessible applications of your product or service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Whose battery IP does Tesla use?

<comment><USER63> Panasonic, source:

[http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/panasonic-and-tesla-sign- agr...](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/panasonic-and-tesla-sign-agreement- gigafactory)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Battery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Battery)

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> And Google is a search engine...

<comment><AUTHOR> Google is an advertising company with a monopoly on a specific native ad type called "search ads"

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Batteries are to devices what rockets are to space...things.

So there's a trend here.

</comment><comment><USER66> Totally ignorant of the tech here, but could they now do Netflix for Batteries? $9 / mo. gets you all the AA, AAA, D cells you require?

<comment><USER67> It's all about the tech. Not disposable cells on the "one to a dozen" scale, but rechargeables by the cubic meter: wanna drive a car 300 miles? Tesla batteries. Wanna buffer your house power, daytime power demand at nighttime costs, or nighttime power use from solar? Tesla batteries. Anything you'd put gasoline in for high-power untethered use? Tesla batteries. Remember: the first Tesla car was powered by an enormous number of laptop batteries (basically AAs by the hundreds/thousands).

Current battery technology insufficient (your phone only lasts a day on a charge, or your electric car only gets 100 miles)? now that he's getting demand up for big-money big-volume batteries, Musk can fund battery research and production on a scale way beyond anything we've seen. Remember: Musk's "gigafactory" project is intended to build more batteries than the entire world currently produces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Aren't they mainly a subsidy company?</comment>


Mental Health and Productivity Web App for College Students - <AUTHOR> https://www.lifejacket.io/

<comment><AUTHOR> Lifejacket helps college students manage to-do lists, calculate grades, track moods/feelings and anonymously share moods/feelings with their fellow classmates. Drawing on concepts from social emotional learning (SEL) and positive psychology, Lifejacket aims to help reduce stress and depression on college campuses, increase productivity, and spread happiness. Although you need to be a student at a currently limited number of universities, I'd really appreciate feedback! Thanks!</comment>


Google Glass will reportedly be manufactured in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/27/4153866/google-glass-will-reportedly-be-manufactured-in-the-us <comment><USER2> Rewrite of [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ead42b3a-96ab-11e2-a77c-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ead42b3a-96ab-11e2-a77c-00144feabdc0.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> s/manufactured/assembled/</comment>


First 3rd party native iPhone application released - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/breaking/first-third+party-native-iphone-application-285830.php

<comment><AUTHOR> How long do you think it will be until Apple patches the iPhone to stop this application?

<comment><USER2> How's it been working with the AppleTV? I know Apple stripped out a bunch of stuff that wasn't needed by their apps in a software update, but people are still installing 3rd party stuff on it.

They could have started an arms race with the iPhone hackers with their first update, but they didn't really do anything other than force people with hacks to wipe their phone because the OS wasn't image wasn't in a known state. With any luck, that's all they'll continue to do. We'll have to wait and see. AT&T might be a cranky partner.</comment></comment>


Cassettes – better than you don't remember - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVoSQP2yUYA <comment><USER2> Yesss. Does this happen nowadays: when technology makes some amazing leap, you decide this must be "the end" and "culmination point" and "things can only get worse from now on" and "I have better buy two units just in case".

Dolby Cassette player, Video8 camcorder, Osborne-1 luggable computer and Nokia E52 phone were some of those culmination points for me. But they seem to happen less often nowadays?</comment>


DOJ Aims to Seize 280 Cryptocurrency Accounts Used by Hackers - <AUTHOR> https://threatpost.com/doj-aims-to-seize-280-cryptocurrency-accounts-used-by-hackers/158757/ <comment><USER2> So according to document[1], the "accounts" they want to seize are cryptocurrency addresses? How is that supposed to work? Are they expecting the cryptocurrency developers to hard fork the network so ownership can be transferred to the DOJ? Are they expecting exchanges to blacklist those addresses? What's preventing the original owners from laundering them again to get past that?

[1] [https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1310421/downl...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press- release/file/1310421/download#page=24)

<comment><USER3> The entire design of bitcoin seems designed to thwart this. Maybe the goal is make this wallet address poisoned so that no one will be willing to move the bitcoin anywhere. Then you can't exchange it or shuffle it, because everyone will be afraid the us govt will come after them. The money is marooned.</comment></comment>


Khronos Group releases OpenGL 4.1, claims to leapfrog Direct3D 11 - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2010/07/khronos-group-releases-opengl-41-claims-to-leapfrog-direct3d-11.ars

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately it really doesn't matter what's in an OpenGL spec, nor how it compares to Direct3D. What matters are which features the hardware manufacturers choose to support and how well they do so. If the past is any guide then OGL will continue to lag Direct3D for a long time to come.

Apple are probably the biggest supplier of high-end OpenGL capable hardware+ outside of the PC market, but unfortunately neither they nor their hardware partners offer full support for OpenGL 3.0 - despite all Mac's manufactured since late 2008 being capable). Even older games such as Portal or Half-life 2 run about 50% faster under Windows & Direct3D on the same hardware.

I've developed with both Direct3D and OpenGL on multiple platforms for most of the past twelve years, as well as using platform-specific APIs like libgcm on the PS3. At the end of the day they are all just tools and a means to an end. Those with the best support and tools are the ones I most enjoy using. Currently that's Direct3D, with an honorable mention to libgcm on the PS3.

(Unlike the Ars article suggests, nobody serious is writing games on the PS3 using OpenGL)

</comment><comment><USER3> IMHO, the killing feature is not requiring Windows...

Seriously, I don't get why one must compare OpenGL, that is cross-platform and runs everything between small phones and visualization workstations to a 3D acceleration library that runs on only one OS and is heavily targeted at games.

<comment><USER2> Windows, Xbox, Xbox 360, Zune HD, and the upcoming Windows Phone, all run Direct3D.

If you've run Vista or Windows 7 lately with an Aero capable card, then much of your desktop experience was rendered by Direct3D.

Finally, Firefox 3.7, Office 2010, Internet Explorer 9, and many more upcoming apps, all make use of the Direct3D rendering layer (via Direct2D) for hardware accelerated rendering.

So yeah, these days it's used in more than a single OS and for a lot more than just games :)

<comment><USER3> s/cross-platform/cross-vendor/

Did you notice you mentioned one desktop OS, one dead failed console, one successful console, one failed media player still on sale and an OS that hasn't hit the market and that has, consequently, no market share, all made by the same company?

How does that remotely compare with the breadth of vendors, device formats, architectures and operating systems OpenGL covers? My phone runs it. My laptop runs it, as does every high-end visualization system I ever used.

<comment><USER2> There's a pretty good chance (e.g. about 100%) that anything you would want to run on that high-end visualization system won't run on your laptop, and anything you would want to run on your laptop won't run on your phone.

If your definition of success is to be running on the broadest spectrum of devices with no regard to marketshare, adoption, or interoperability, then you're right - OpenGL is far more attractive than Direct3D. Ditto Linux over OSX/Windows.

My interests are driven more by market realities.

Having a wide breadth of device vendors and formats is NOT attractive when considering what platforms to target. This is one reason why games on iPhone are far more prevalent than Android - there are basically three iPhone revisions to worry about, compared to a dozen Android handsets that all have slightly different specs, capabilities, and driver bugs.

If OpenGL sees accelerated adoption over the next few years it will be because it's the chosen API of the wildly popular and relatively homogeneous iOS family of devices, not because it has the greatest breadth of hardware support.

<comment><USER3> > There's a pretty good chance (e.g. about 100%) that anything you would want > to run on that high-end visualization system won't run on your laptop, and > anything you would want to run on your laptop won't run on your phone.

I agree I will not be able to view 3D medical images on my phone with the same ease I can with a visualization workstation, but that's beyond the point. The point is the same functions are being called by Google Earth on the cellphone and the medical imaging application.

> your definition of success is to be running on the broadest spectrum of > devices

No. That's my definition of "cross-platform". Comparing OpenGL with Direct3D is an apples to oranges comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _Previously, OpenGL ES was slightly incompatible with conventional OpenGL. > With OpenGL 4.1, that's no longer the case; the desktop platform is a > superset of the embedded one._

Brilliant move. _That_ might constitute leap-frogging; if WebGL gets more traction, this could be a killer feature.</comment>


The 10,000-hour rule is wrong and perpetuates a cruel myth - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10000-hour-rule-is-wrong-and-perpetuates-a-cruel-myth-2017-3 <comment><USER2> Gladwell did a bait and switch, in his book first ignoring the role of talent, and then when pressed for more details, clarifying that the 10,000 hour rule applies to those who already have talent but then practiced 10,00 hours to hone such talent. [http://greyenlightenment.com/malcolm-gladwell-bait-and- switc...](http://greyenlightenment.com/malcolm-gladwell-bait-and-switch/)

I think the amended version of '10,000 hours' is closer to being correct, and probably not the one the public wants to hear.

Ericsson's research isn't much better either though. His sample size was very small and his research was never replicated. As the 'how I taught myself physics in one year' thread showed, it's pretty obvious innate talent exists and can allow people to attain mastery of very complicated concepts in far less than 10,000 hours.

Not sure it is a cruel myth...more like wishful thinking that can have unintended consequences by mismanaging resources (such as having low-IQ kids in prestigious schools, in the hope that environment will overcome a cognitive deficit)...if it were so cruel, it would not have taken the world by storm...'10,000 hours' succeeds as a meme because it tells people what they want to believe, that with enough practice, anyone can covet the skills of genius. It's not so much that people want to become world-class musicians or top physicists, but rather that they have the potential to become those things if they want to, by practicing enough.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure you can attain mastery in anything by practicing for 10,000 hours. Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard.

The caveat is that you will not be the best. You might not even be world class. Or even national class. But you _are_ going to be better than somebody who practiced only 1,000 hours no matter how talented they are.

What people forget is that at the very high levels of achievement in any field, 20,000 hours is just the price of entry. _Everyone_ who's playing has practiced for 20,000 hours. Difference between 1st, 2nd, and 10th comes down to talent and a bit of luck.

<comment><USER4> From the article, "For example, the number of hours of deliberate practice to first reach "master" ranged from 728 hours to 16,120 hours." And given that this excludes everybody who gives up before reaching master, I believe the real gap is much wider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This assumption that you either excel at something or you should just do something else is as dumb as saying that you either become a billionaire or you might as well live on the streets.

Just because marketing the top 1% is easier doesn't mean the rest is crap. Just because you won't be the next Bill Gates doesn't mean you shouldn't start (and enjoy building) your own software company.

Even the 10k hours theory doesn't explain why some people can practice for so long but others can't. So, clearly, we all start at different positions in life.

<comment><USER6> I agree, and I'd like to add that what one does with/after those 10000 hours matters too, i.e. the individual factor. There's not just a large range between all-or-nothing, but there are many different "alls" too.

As an example: I am a good guitar player. I've put in probably close to 10000 hours. But lots of guitar players can play and come up with things I never could. And lots of guitar players can't play or come up with some of the things I can.

There simply isn't one sort of top guitar player, or composer, or inventor. There are lots of ideas, shades and colours, different solutions to all sorts of problems. It helps to know your area of expertise, but a truckload of Bill Gates / Bach / Rembrandt clones wouldn't be able to come up with all the novel ideas and creative solutions a more diverse set of people with their own individual quirks could.

Individuals bring things to the table that can't be put that easily into a quantifiable number; most real life problems are more complex in nature than an Olympic race where there's a clear winner and way to win. I think it's at least as important in life to find out in which ways you are unique and can make (some modicum of) a difference.

<comment><USER7> Feynman told a story about his "one extra trick". He ascribed a certain amount of his mathematical prowess to simply knowing an uncommon integration trick that most of his colleagues did not. So when they failed to solve an integral, they would bring it to him, and some of the time, using his one extra trick, he would solve it, dazzling everyone.

Which is not to say that his one extra trick was particularly powerful, or widely applicable, but it was unusual, and it produced a difference in ability. Maybe Feynman couldn't solve _more_ integrals than his colleagues, but he could integrate _different_ ones, which made him useful and "smart".

Which in turn brings up the nature/nurture question of genius: to what extent is genius a matter of "innate" skill (in this case, that arises either from the circumstances of your birth or life) and how much of it is a quirk of your education, the one extra trick you learned (or didn't) that make you approach problems in a way different than your peers?

<comment><USER8> This is a good story, and it's worth noting that Feynman reiterated the idea of building a repertoire of techniques or problems in several different ways.

Here are two:

The way to excel in physics, according to Feynman, was to have several unsolved problems in the back of your mind, waiting for new information to spark an insight.

Feynman reports that fraternity kids at the university he attended would be taught slick answers to classic questions like "why does a mirror reverse left and right but not up and down" \-- a kind of repertoire of responses that was part of their initiation.

Creativity doesn't come out of nowhere, it's a cumulative thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am always intrigued by the 10KH argument. Here's my story - I just turned 50 last year. Been programming for nearly 35 years of that time. Not just 10,000 hours here - I think we are talking well over 1,000 individual applications and utilities over that time.

Do I consider myself one of the best at my profession?? Not even close. Probably wouldn't even rate myself in the top 1/3rd of the worlds programmers. I've met guys who have been alive less time than I have been programming who can run rings around me, code wise.

I also play guitar, been doing so for longer than I have been programming, but I am a very stop/start type of player. Sometimes I will play guitar for 1 to 2 hours per day for a month or two straight, then I will put the instrument away for a year or more and not touch it because of things like a new baby arriving in our family, or work commitments etc.

When I don't touch the guitar for a while and come back to it after a long break, I am like a beginner again. I cannot remember any of the melodies that I had studied so hard even a few months before, and I feel like I am a newbie learning again. After a long spell of consistent, deliberate practice (as Gladwell expounds), I feel as if I am playing at a normal level again. [0]

Is that really what the 10K hours are about? Simply keeping the muscle and neural memory current, flexible and able to translate intentions quicker? It makes sense that constant practice keeps the fingers deft, and ensures your brain synapses are focused on the task of playing, rather than getting distracted with a million other things.

[0] - [https://soundcloud.com/cyberferret](https://soundcloud.com/cyberferret)

<comment><USER10> My sons violin teacher made the point to him after observing him practice (paraphrased):

"What you are doing is playing, not practice. When you play through a piece like that, you spend most of your time on the bits you already know, and just a little time on the parts you find difficult, and you end up not repeating the hard parts very often. To practice, you should stop when you find something difficult, and repeat that part until you can do it well, and _then_ move on to the next."

You will improve through simple repetition (edit: of a whole piece, or anything else where you know large parts of it well), but you will waste a lot of that time cementing things you already know very well.

And this is what marks the difference between time spent "executing" work in an area and practice in an area. Reaching the top in most areas will for most people mean shifting the balance between amount of time worked in that area and the amount of time spent on deliberate practice towards more deliberate practice and less towards performing.

<comment><USER11> That's very insightful. It's not the time you spend on something, it's the time you take working through the hard parts that determines success. I read before that they believe character determines success more than talent, with perseverance being the most desirable character trait. Your idea aligns nicely with this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think this paper should be linked to on every story like this: [http://cogprints.org/656/1/innate.htm](http://cogprints.org/656/1/innate.htm)

The worst is when people give themselves excuses and say, "I don't have natural talent, I can't learn math." Well sure, if you don't have natural talent you might not be Paul Erdős, but you can still get through calculus.

<comment><USER13> Something that strikes out in the BI article is the separation of children on schools given their profile. Major advancements happened at the crossing of domains. Interesting perspectives were brought to a domain by people from other fields, thinking differently. User interfaces for instance, use cases for technology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article doesn't clarify that the exceptional students who had completed approx. 10,000 hours of deliberate practice were only 20 years old. It was said that violinists had only truly mastered the instrument by 30-40, by which time they had far more than 10,000 hours of practice.

Gladwell misquoted Ericsson. Read Ericsson's book, Peak. Get your facts right.

<comment><USER15> Let's read the Ericsson's short correction:

[https://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wro...](https://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malcolm_gladwell_got_us_wrong_our_research_was_key_to_the_10000_hour_rule_but_heres_what_got_oversimplified/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> _The second reason we should not pretend we are endowed with the same abilities is that doing so perpetuates the myth that is at the root of much inaction in society — the myth that people can help themselves to the same degree if they just try hard enough.

You're not a heart surgeon? That's your fault for not working hard enough in school! You didn't make it as a concert pianist? You must not have wanted it that badly._

But the problem is, telling someone who aspires to be doctor or some other high-IQ profession that they shouldn't try, because they aren't smart enough, may also seem cruel, so we settle on what we perceive to be lesser of two cruelties.

</comment><comment><USER16> Deliberate practice won't make you top 1% material in most things, since at higher levels everyone's working hard and genetically gifted. But it'll get you pretty far assuming you don't have any physical disadvantages (like being quadriplegic and wanting to be a kickboxer).

<comment><USER17> I would guess that you can be top 1% of the _general population_ in most things (and probably even like 5% of the field) just by trying really hard.

I mean, you're likely in top 6-7% of football players just by being on your high school's team. (1mil football players in HS, 15mil students; random Google numbers)

I would guess with effort, and I mean a lot of effort, pretty much anyone could make top 20% of a high school team. That puts you in 1% land.

The NFL has an average career length between 3 and 6 years, and has under 2000 players. So it's only 0.2% of high school players, or 0.01% of the population. (I just pretended average career length was 4 years, so it lines up with a translated HS cohort.)

This sort of makes sense: you can make 5% relatively easily, and 1% with serious effort. But top of the top professionals are 1 in 10,000, and to be that good you have to make it your life's work (plus it helps to be genetically predisposed).

Ed: Just wanted to add, to be top 1% of the NFL means, literally, you're one- in-a-million.

<comment><USER18> > _I mean, you 're likely in top 6-7% of football players just by being on > your high school's team._

Not being from the US, I thought you were talking about soccer for a second, and your number did not make any sense at all. But that only confirms your point, in a way: if everyone does something, being part of the top would be much more difficult.

<comment><USER17> From the rough numbers I could find in a FIFA document, if you even _play_ soccer by their definition, you're in only 4% of global population.

That includes schools, street football, and occasional players. If you drop the occasional part? About 2% of global population. That's still including schools and street games, corporate teams, etc.

So, just playing with any seriousness puts you in the top 2% of global population for soccer.

If you're a _registered_ player, it cuts the number down to 1 in 4. So about 0.5% of global population. Im not sure registered players are, as a rule, better, but someone who is a serious player and registered stands a good chance of being top 1% globally -- something I think anyone with effort could do.

Being a professional soccer player puts you at about 1 in 100,000 _globally_ , and 1 in 1,000 of people who play more than occasionally. (And 1 in 2,000 of people who play at all.)

I suspect that this is because I only looked at the NFL, which would be more like only top-tier teams, not all professionals.

The point being: the numbers actually are pretty darn close, and soccer seems to confirm my point about top 5% being relatively doable and top 1% being just effort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Could people stop just reading one thing and then living their lives by it?

Whether it's Myer's Briggs, or 10,000 hour rule, or some other self-help book with a reasonable premise -- I feel like most of the time it's just some reasonable premise taken to an extreme.

Yes, if you want to be good at something, you'll have to practice a lot. Yes, practicing mindfully is better than just putting in hours. Yes, there are different kinds of people and you can (sometimes) broadly characterize them. I find it hard to respect people that read points like those, take them to the extreme, and then it becomes their sole mindset for 6/12 months until the next thing comes along.

<comment><USER20> The quickest path to success is having rich relatives and friends. Everyone should just pursue that.

All joking aside, even if they are placebos (and Myer's Briggs certainly is), whatever it takes to motivate people towards excellence to me would be a positive.

<comment><USER21> Ten thousand hours of deliberate practice is hardly a placebo.

<comment><USER20> It is if it doesn't actually solve the problem it is being sold to solve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have a chronic quarrel with psychologists who talk about advancements in science, technology and math from an ivory tower of the social sciences and not from the trenches. Far too many discoveries happen as a result of serendipity and/or hard work. As Terence Tao said, you might not be as smart as grothendieck,but you can still make your own advancements in your corner of math.

</comment><comment><USER23> This either/or between effort and genes is ridiculous. Isn't it possible that something interesting is happening between those 10,000 hours? Isn't is possible that successful families not only instill success in their offspring through special training, but also suppress success in other people's children? Nobody here is talking about the role of tripping your opponent as he approaches the finishing line, or of the first born queen bee murdering her rivals before they're born. We're far too focused on positive attributes of competition.

</comment><comment><USER24> 2014 article, and the pushback on Gladwell's book began almost as soon as it came out. I think there is a certain level of misunderstanding the argument he makes, in that it is assumed that the person engaging in the practice meets the minimum requirements for the activity. If you can't amass enough muscle mass, no amount of practice will make you into an NFL lineman. The problem is that in more complex activities or in areas of aesthetics like the arts, what the required level of talent to attain a high level is hard to quantify or recognize.

<comment><USER25> Matthew Seyd (the Author of _Bounce: The Myth of Talent_ ) absolutely makes the argument that there is not minimum requirements for an activity by denying any form of genetic predisposition (or 'talent') for any activity.

He puts skill at any activity, from 100m sprinting to fine arts, down purely to practice and does some amazing logical fallacies to get there.

<comment><USER12> _He puts skill at any activity, from 100m sprinting to fine arts, down purely to practice and does some amazing logical fallacies to get there._

How does he deal with the fact that certain body types are more conducive to sprinting? Or does he just ignore that altogether?

<comment><USER26> Yeah, because there's literally nothing 99.99% of people on Earth can do to get them close to Usain Bolt's physical advantages as a sprinter. Sure, he had to work hard to maximize his ability, but that work plus his freakish body means smashing 100 and 200 meter records.

<comment><USER12> That's a thought worth discussing, but you didn't answer the question at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I haven't read Outliers, but I've always understood the "10,000 hour rule" as a means of expressing the fact that all meaningful skills take years practice to truly become an expert. It's _necessary_, but not necessarily sufficient. Did Gladwell actually assert that 10,000 hours is sufficient for anyone to become an expert at any skill in Outliers? Or is that just a convenient way to misinterpret the book and the rule to be able to write snarky articles like this one?

<comment><USER28> Having read Outliers, I understood the "10,000 hour rule" as a rule of thumb for what it takes to go from zero to meaningfully better than most people on pretty much any given subject (aka: an expert).

Subsequent to reading the book, I do notice that the rule is also widely used as a convenient way to deliberately misinterpret the book & rule and write snarky articles. Somehow people think it's clever & fair to take a single phrase out of a multi-hundred-page context and ridicule it for not inherently being encyclopedic in depth and peer-reviewed.

Undiscussed is that the "outliers" the book investigates are people who _started_ with "10,000 hours", having achieved that level of practice when most competitors (themselves forming a tiny segment of the general population) are just _beginning_ their 10KH. Also, they tend to do so when the rest of the field is just beginning to form. Bill Gates had his 10,000 hours in _before_ starting college - and did so just as the "personal computer" was starting to emerge. The Beatles had their 10,000 hours in _before_ leaving high school - and were ready when mass-distribution music + rock & roll were emerging as the norm. To wit: it takes 10,000 hours practice (that's working on the hard stuff, not the familiar/easy) to become an expert; it takes having done that _before_ that expert's peers to become an outlier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Reality is cruel too :(. While I am persuaded by the idea that nature may be as important or more so than nurture I don't agree with much of what this article says about politics, social engineering, etc. It says the 10k hour myth is cruel, but bucketing people into categories and then postulating on their potential contribution on the basis of science as dubious as the 10k hour rule is more so.

</comment><comment><USER30> Assumes Correlation and Causation, ignores Social and Economic situations of the twins groups, doesn't account for the fact that identical twins tend to share (being geared towards) more experiences due to being perceived almost as a single "being", ignores cultural differences in upbringing of different- gender twins, doesn't account for indirect training (i.e. strategy, memorization, sequential steps etc. are parts of a Chess game), doesn't account for perception of time (Time passes slowly when we don't like what we're doing) and completely ignores training "quality" (Playing chess against newbies is useless as practice, playing against masters is enlightening).

It's ALSO not your "fault" that you do not excel at something. Your experiences ever since you were a baby shaped you, your tastes and pretty much determined your whole life.

Still, there is no talent, ask any great programmer, musician, illustrator or whatever, every single one of them will say he/she was shitty, but loved it, so kept doing it. This doesn't completely discards the possibility of genetic disposition to liking something, but undeniably everyone starts on even ground.

Obviously, being complex areas they are affected by many indirect skills, and the more something is loved, the safer it is to assume the indirect skills involved are also loved or at least liked, indirect skills matter. Clearly fiddling with computers and watching movies that involve technology is not programming, but will make you better at it.

In the end, the best explanation so far is that your tastes are the defining factor. And yes, it can be argued that tastes are genetic, but currently there's not nearly enough data to debunk the standing theory, we need more studies and we need better studies, taking all variables into account and actually monitoring the subjects throughout their lives.

Maybe in 50 years we'll find out where our tastes come from. Not that it actually matters since it's out of our control anyways.

<comment><USER31> I've got over a decade of deliberate and intense study and practice in programming. I love it and I love learning new things about it. I've worked in half a dozen professional languages and over a dozen for fun. I give conference talks and have two books out. And yet several people I work with can absolutely run circles around me due to much better long and short term memory. For every hour I put in, they can get farther with ten minutes. I only hold my own in the same league as them with 5x more effort. It's absolutely possible that there is a "wet-ware" component to mastery.

<comment><USER30> And you probably run circles around a lot of people. If anybody said you were gifted it would be a lie, it's the result of dedication. I've never seen anyone say "I have talent", and I've been to music and computer science colleges. I've seen a lot of people saying that other people have talent though.

But my point is not that everyone faces the same hardships, is just that those hardships or lack thereof are not genetic but acquired, probably mostly during early childhood but I'm not a psychologist so I don't know.

I just think we shouldn't dismiss achievements as a result of just talent (or luck). Luck actually plays a role, as well as many other things (As I said, economic and social situations and a lot more).

We just need to be sceptical of linking stuff to genes, humans are not so simple. There are many other factors at play, and even if we can't change ourselves, we may be able to raise our kids better by considering these subtleties and their possible impact.

Plus those "geniuses" love when people acknowledge their hard work, try talking to them about it. I find the amount of effort some people put into their craft to be staggering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think there is some nuance that is missed when performing studies that compares hours practiced to mastery. I'm currently reading a book called A Mind for Numbers (the companion book for the popular MOOC on Coursera called Learning How to Learn) and what I am realizing is that not everyone practices or studies the most optimal way.

"For example, the number of hours of deliberate practice to first reach "master" status (a very high level of skill) ranged from 728 hours to 16,120 hours. This means that one player needed 22 times more deliberate practice than another player to become a master."

Maybe those 728 hours were more efficient and effective deliberate practice than the 16,120 hours.

Edit: the book is called "A Mind for Numbers", not "A Mind for Math"

<comment><USER33> So we can accept this as probably true but we are not willing to accept that 10x programmers exist?

<comment><USER34> Even if someone is 10X better in the abstract, real world problems may not show much of a difference. It doesn't matter who is 10X better if you're playing football against toddlers. And most programming falls into this category.

It sort of shows through all the complaints about interviews, most programming work is just not difficult enough to separate people, so anything that does needs to be scorned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm pretty sure that Malcolm Gladwell clarified his position on the 10,000 hour rule during Tim Ferris' podcast [0]. He was saying that the 10,000 hour rule was meant to clearly indicate that becoming successful requires a large support system.

Which seems to make it easier to understand why kids who start really early can become successful: they don't have to worry about all the things adults have to. Conversely, it explains a little bit why being an adult makes it harder to become world-class at something.

[0] [http://tim.blog/2016/06/21/malcolm- gladwell/](http://tim.blog/2016/06/21/malcolm-gladwell/)

</comment><comment><USER36> If the rule is wrong then it's really good news! At least for my mental state, as I've spent countless hours practicing music in a span of 15 years and still play worse than some of the self-taught beginners with 3-4 years of experience. It's depressing and is already becoming an obstacle in motivating to practice further.

If the rule stands, it means it's my fault: I'm not motivated enough, not passionate enough, not smart enough to organize my practice routine. It's what I'm thinking today and what hurts my self-esteem. If the rule's wrong that would be a relief, as it means it's not _completely_ my fault.

</comment><comment><USER37> "There are certain things that writers and critics prize, and readers don't. So we're obsessed with things like coherence, consistency, neatness of argument. Readers are indifferent to those things" \- Malcolm Gladwell

</comment><comment><USER38> Gladwell never claimed that we're all given equal potential though. Most of the book is focused on the gains from deliberate practice amongst those who _already_ are genetically set up to succeed. In fact, a central point is about how practice helps to amplify those initial advantages not diminish them.

<comment><USER26> Seems like at first he was saying talent was mostly a myth, and then backed off a little when challenged and said that talent matters some, as a prerequisite or what have you. But I've heard him on the radio talking about how Wayne Gretzky was the best ever at his sport not because of talent, but because of love of the game. Apparently, Gretzky just loved hockey more than anyone else. I guess there are no Rudy's in hockey.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> > But this information could just as easily be used to identify children with > the least genetic potential for academic success and channel them into the > best schools. This would probably create a more equal society than the one > we have, and it would do so by identifying those who are likely to face > learning challenges and provide them with the support they might need.

Sounds like Harrison Bergeron to me: why not invest those resources into the best minds, who can increase the standard of living for all mankind, rather than investing them only to raise folks to average?

Of course, in reality one would invest a little here and a little there, but it _is_ a zero-sum game: every resource used to help the unintelligent succeed is a resource not expended to help the intelligent exceed.

</comment><comment><USER40> My tongue-in-cheek response to the headline, in the context of guitar, make me chuckle quite a bit:

"Exactly! 10,000 hours is far too few! More like 30,000 if you really want to start covering all the different styles and techniques with competence!"

It's not always "What" a person practices, but also "How" a person does so. Attention to detail, trying new things, learning from mistakes, reflection when away from the hobby/interest. Far too many variables for any one-size- fits-all perspective on Talent and Achievement, but in looking for correlatives and "causation approximate" techniques, Practice certainly shows up time and again.

</comment><comment><USER41> Malcolm Gladwell should not be taken seriously.

<comment><USER42> why is that?

<comment><USER41> He makes broad, oversimplified generalizations that are not supported by the research he cites.

This is a problem with science writing in general, but Gladwell is especially pernicious because he has a good writing style and good marketing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Still, the concept of hard work beating talent without hard work is a very powerful one. You won't be the best but after such dedication and hard work, you will always achieve above average results in your area.

So, keep on hustlin!

</comment><comment><USER44> Perhaps society pays undue attention to things that can be improved with 10,000 hours of practice. There are many skills that could possibly be learned only after more than 10,000 hours. Probably so few people have the dedication that they remain niche pursuits or novelties. And things that require a lot less than 10,000 hours aren't very impressive (driving, for example) because lots of people learn to do them. Things that require about 10,000 is the sweet spot for competition. Note that the examples are almost always competitive situations or positional goods type situations.

<comment><USER45> > And things that require a lot less than 10,000 hours aren't very impressive > (driving, for example) because lots of people learn to do them.

I just guesstimated that I spent maybe 7,500 hours (over 3.5 years) driving around in a taxi. Towards the end of that period I started to notice things that the other cars on the road would likely do, and point this out to my passengers. "See that car? it's going to change lanes and that other guy is going to have to slam on his brakes..."

Just the other day I was driving with my mother. Our light turned green, but I saw that the car in the cross traffic couldn't see that his light had turned red (on account of the sunset). I waited, and watched as he slammed on his brakes. (Not especially impressive, just recent.)

There's something to putting in time on any activity. With regards to this article postulating that "10,000 hours rule" doesn't matter... I think the relevant saying is not "practice makes perfect", but "perfect practice makes perfect". If you spend 10,000 practicing something wrong it won't be as helpful as 1,000 hours practicing it right.

Bruce Lee said, "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The article and Gladwell rather skip over that a lot of success is down to being better than the competition so the hours required should depend on how good the competition is. So to be expert at the violin may take 10,000 hours but being say a blockchain expert may take less as your competition haven't been studying it since childhood.

"The amazing thing is we did so well while being so stupid. That's why you're all here: you think that there's hope for you. Go where there's dumb competition" \- Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's business partner.

</comment><comment><USER47> "For a pair of identical twins, the twin who practiced music more did not do better on the tests than the twin who practiced less"

So this doesn't make sense - otherwise, why practice at all?

And indeed the article goes on to explain that the "music ability test" only tested some things, like ability to read notes.

Maybe the scientists need to work on improving their measurement devices first, before making sweeping claims about talent and practice...

<comment><USER48> Sounds like the law of diminishing returns to me. Practicing matters, but there is some point where more practice will not yield a lot of result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> " _For example, yet another recent twin study (and the Karolinska Institute study) found that there was a genetic influence on practicing music. Pushing someone into a career for which he or she is genetically unsuited will likely not work._ "

Out of curiosity, has anyone replicated this kind of genetic study for professional musicians? It would be interesting to know how many just really don't have the talent.

</comment><comment><USER50> Freakonomics did an episode about this where he interviewed both Malcolm Gladwell and Anders Ericsson. I recommend listening to it to get their sides of the story.

[http://freakonomics.com/podcast/peak/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/peak/)

</comment><comment><USER51> I aim to be "ok" in about 20 hrs of deliberate practice. Hell the FAA says you can fly plane in 40.

<comment><USER52> In this context "deliberate practice" means more than just "practicing on purpose". The description here looks okay:

[http://expertenough.com/1423/deliberate- practice](http://expertenough.com/1423/deliberate-practice)

However in Ericsson's book he puts more emphasis on guidance by an expert teacher (who can help identify specific challenges appropriate to the learner).

<comment><USER51> > Analyzing a set of studies can reveal an average correlation between two > variables that is statistically more precise than the result of any > individual study.

I don't know what talent is. And just being good at something isn't it. If you have the opportunity to sit and watch a lot of different folks "get something", absolutely do it. Then talk to them about what just occurred. I have this hunch that talent is having the mental model and the physical world be sync such that any error in the mental model is instantly repaired. That the person undergoing talent, is literally doing multiple experiments in the moment with result times on the order of subsecond to minutes. They aren't pushing skills in as much as playing. Skills build on skills, dancers, athletes, musicians. We have all seen someone good in one thing instantly pickup another and decry, "oh they are so talented!" They applied 100% of what they already knew and added 1%. What they needed was already in their skill- dna.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Reality is cruel too I'm afraid :(. The article is probably right about the importance of genes but I'm not sure I agree with anything else it says about politics, social engineering, etc.

</comment><comment><USER53> This TEDxCSU talk [0] is a couple years old but directly addresses the 10,000 hour claim.

[0] [https://youtu.be/5MgBikgcWnY](https://youtu.be/5MgBikgcWnY)

</comment><comment><USER54> As an adult, i've found 100hrs of deliberate practice makes you fairly competent in most hobbies.

</comment><comment><USER55> What does it mean to practice programming vs just programming?

<comment><USER56> Probably doing things for which you have little experience, or are bad at, instead of just doing the day job. For example, I can write templates without much thought, keep my functions small and well-named, etc. Extra practice isn't going to get me very far in that regime. Reading about and designing scaleable systems, or implementing efficient data structures, or practicing problem solving in a recursive way will be much more fruitful for me personally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Site requires scripts to read any content on. I don't like running code from random websites, so I don't. Can't comment on the article.

I will guess that the 'cruel myth' is that anyone can spent the requisite time and do anything. (Some people just don't get / can't get X, even if they want to and try really hard.)

<comment><USER58> The Business Insider article links this[0] one as the original article in the footnote. It's very similar and also worth a read (and I think it shouldn't require running code to be read)

[0]: [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/malcolm_gladwell_s_10_000_hour_rule_for_deliberate_practice_is_wrong_genes.html)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Testelf - black box testing for iOS - <AUTHOR> https://www.testelf.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. I started Testelf a year ago to make testing easier for mobile development teams. Many of our early adopters came from HN and we wouldn't have gotten this far without the support from this community. Thanks everyone!

While cloud services have made product development faster and easier, testing is still a bottleneck. Black box testing is essential in ensuring major issues are caught before an app reaches the end user. Testelf currently provides black box testing for iOS. My goal is to build a testing service that's not only affordable, but also very easy to use. We charge a flat price ($200) per test, have a two-day turnaround, require no documentation or spec from users, and provide a very comprehensive test report.

We launched a private beta with 30 companies around five months ago and have received very good feedback. Today, we are opening up the service to everyone. While we are iOS only for now, we are planning to add Android and Mac app testing in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER2> Testelf has been my answer to testing. I love this service and highly recommend it to everyone.

<comment><USER3> We've been a happy paying Testelf customer since I first learned about it on HN several months ago. We save _so_ much time by just sending over our beta builds without having to write exhaustive test cases, and we've gotten back extremely thorough reports. Since the initial mvp they've added awesome features like animated gifs of complex repro steps and full crash logs for crashing bugs. It's not a drop-in replacement for unit testing + customer beta testing, but it's a quick and inexpensive addition to any QA process. I recommend this to every iOS developer I know, it's seriously awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Testelf is fantastic to use.</comment>