What's new
By:

Emad Dlala out

The_Don said:
Lucid actually has a pretty legit marketing guy in place (Akerho Oghoghomeh). Has been with Lucid since last year.

I know they get dunked on for marketing but I actually think their ads are pretty good. They could use more ad placement but there are probably budget constraints.

See LinkedIn profile for reference:
www.linkedin.com

Akerho Oghoghomeh - Lucid Motors | LinkedIn

I’m a growth-obsessed marketer passionate about turning ambitious ideas into measurable… · Experience: Lucid Motors · Education: Emory University - Goizueta Business School · Location: Los Angeles · 500+ connections on LinkedIn. View Akerho Oghoghomeh’s profile on LinkedIn, a professional...
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com
Click to expand...
It’s better than the stupid Chalamet ad. They could have bought a superbowl ad for that money. Instead they made an incoherent vanity short with some kardashians boyfriend
 
An EV company can generate substantial profits without constant innovation or launching new models. That seems to be the lens they are using—and I hope it proves correct.

We may be entering a phase where Lucid can succeed on the strength of its existing foundation, particularly through software and service. Its engineering is already strong enough that even a multi-year pause would still leave it among the leaders in the field.

For those who have been critical of Lucid’s service, software, or stock performance, this shift may be exactly what you have been asking for.
 
dgib85 said:
The house needed cleaning and the new CEO is doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

Why would you say the engineering side of the house needed cleaning? You don't clean a house by tearing out its foundation. The three engineers most responsible for leapfrogging Tesla's leading-edge powertrain technology (Rawlinson, Bach, Dlala) are now all gone.

Lucid had maneuvered itself into a position to rival Porsche on both propulsion and chassis engineering and even now still outstrips it on space engineering. If Lucid can't manage to replace these guys with equal engineering talent, where does that suggest they are going as a car company?
 
hmp10 said:
Why would you say the engineering side of the house needed cleaning? You don't clean a house by tearing out its foundation. The three engineers most responsible for leapfrogging Tesla's leading-edge powertrain technology (Rawlinson, Bach, Dlala) are now all gone.

Lucid had maneuvered itself into a position to rival Porsche on both propulsion and chassis engineering and even now still outstrips it on space engineering. If Lucid can't manage to replace these guys with equal engineering talent, where does that suggest they are going as a car company?
Click to expand...
New CEO possibly new vision? We both know many people create great things and move on. Maybe it was his time, maybe he left on his own terms. I'll go with the new CEO wants his own hires and to make his own mark. Which leads to my next paragraph.

Everything we're doing currently is speculation. We're not in the walls of the company.

At the end of the day, the last 3 years have been messy.
 
hmp10 said:
Why would you say the engineering side of the house needed cleaning? You don't clean a house by tearing out its foundation. The three engineers most responsible for leapfrogging Tesla's leading-edge powertrain technology (Rawlinson, Bach, Dlala) are now all gone.

Lucid had maneuvered itself into a position to rival Porsche on both propulsion and chassis engineering and even now still outstrips it on space engineering. If Lucid can't manage to replace these guys with equal engineering talent, where does that suggest they are going as a car company?
Click to expand...
I bought into the vision because it seemed like there was a commitment to technical leadership, Bought into Lucid the car and as an investor on the vision.. That said, there are many examples the world over where the technical leader is not the business leader. And $$ pays the bills.

In the absence of a clear technical vision, it now pivots to fundamental business execution.

I was a big Emad fan as well, a Pro's Pro in the field, and the interesting thing was Silvio mentioned in his intro Bloomberg interview that he respected the technical achievements but needed to make it sustainable.

My total WAG is that development pipeline past midsize just got canned, and that's at odds with the vision being technical leadership. Best interpretation is collateral damage. Basically it's nice to have a dev pipeline, but if you don't survive, it doesn't matter.

Really torn as an investor though since the technical leadership vision is out the window. On one hand there's examples of operators coming in and turning it around. (If you remember Uber when they ousted Travis, that ended up working out actually). The saving grace is that Silvio has a technical background and it's clearly not just a financial engineer.

Disappointed for sure though, but perhaps it's just a tough reality.
 
I think it’s telling that so many of us find this departure distressing. And while we don’t know whether he left on his own volition or not, retention of top talent is one of a CEO’s main jobs.

But maybe more concerning is we really don’t know what Lucid wants to be. Mass market EV or Luxury high end EV? Robotaxi?

Even the Cosmos and Earth marketing to different family personas was bizarre and didn’t make sense to me or anyone else. ‘Upscale nurturers’? What are they talking about? Literal head scratching from the major EV review outlets on that one.

Their utter lack of identity as a company is leading to strange decisions and poor execution. I’m not sure this clarifies anything for us, just further muddies the waters as to what Lucid wants to become. Time is almost up.
 
The only counter I'll provide is I think Lucid, like every automotive manufacturer, really needs to become a software company more than anything else. They have the best motors and they have an institutional focus on packaging optimization. I don't really think there is much more to be done on the hardware side for EVs outside of battery tech improvements, which is largely out of Lucid's hands.

Emad was no doubt a great engineer and leader, but if software is the focus, was he the best person for that role?
 
RajD said:
I think it’s telling that so many of us find this departure distressing. And while we don’t know whether he left on his own volition or not, retention of top talent is one of a CEO’s main jobs.

But maybe more concerning is we really don’t know what Lucid wants to be. Mass market EV or Luxury high end EV? Robotaxi?

Even the Cosmos and Earth marketing to different family personas was bizarre and didn’t make sense to me or anyone else. ‘Upscale nurturers’? What are they talking about? Literal head scratching from the major EV review outlets on that one.

Their utter lack of identity as a company is leading to strange decisions and poor execution. I’m not sure this clarifies anything for us, just further muddies the waters as to what Lucid wants to become. Time is almost up.
Click to expand...
They could always pivot to perpetual motion rolling datacenters...
 
Lucidicrous said:
For those who have been critical of Lucid’s service, software, or stock performance, this shift may be exactly what you have been asking for.
Click to expand...
I really believe that companies should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. There is a reason why tactics and strategy are different fields. You don't fire strategically important people because of your tactical goals.
 
socktucker said:
with 3DTV and VR Headsets!
Click to expand...
Training the next self driving model, while self driving, while you are in another reality - what could possibly go wrong!

Knowing nothing about what's going on, and presuming competence. The only other interpretation I have is that Silvio identified there needed to be a cultural shift and that was more important than individual talent (which generally is true). Perhaps Lucid was run from the engineering organization, its decision center / power structures there and Silvio decided that needed to be broken for the company to move forward.

Still, it's disappointing to see that it couldn't work out and have both.
 
tarator said:
I really believe that companies should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. There is a reason why tactics and strategy are different fields. You don't fire strategically important people because of your tactical goals.
Click to expand...
That's right, you might fire / push them out though if they aren't aligned with the strategic goals.
 
dgib85 said:
Just my two cents...

Half of the messages are telling me that most people here think they know how to run the business better than the management running the business.

The house needed cleaning and the new CEO is doing exactly that.

Business is tough, things happen, CEO was literally hired a couple of months ago.

Happy Overreaction Wednesday!
Click to expand...
It is not an overreaction to be concerned about the sudden loss/departure of the essential asset that was Emad Dlala. I spent the last few months considering a senior role in software at Lucid. Emad was the pull for that; that is, he was the reason I considered taking the job, when otherwise it would be a difficult sell (for me, since I was “funemployed” by choice). He is an incredible leader, and though he pushed his people extremely hard (working weekends until software is up to par, for example), he also worked them himself. This garnered the respect of his teams because crunch time meant everyone was all-in, not an imposition from above. He expected as much from himself as he did from his teams. He knew how important the combination of speed and face time was, and he was making good changes. I think this is well-evidenced by the results.

He did drive his people hard. But he did it while managing to make it feel like everyone was on the same team. And he really cared; that much was very clear.

Emad made people want to work for and with him.

I’ve also met Marc, the new VP of Software. I like him. He’s very smart, and we had a great conversation. I’m not taking anything away from him at all. He’s great, and I’m really looking forward to seeing how he changes things and moves things forward.

But losing Emad is harmful; there’s just no two ways about it.

(I ended up taking a role running the Agentic Red Team @ DeepMind, in case anyone’s curious, a role I couldn’t say no to)
 
martinjlm said:
I could list all the reasons that people that worked for me or around me left "to pursue other opportunities". That is long held industry-speak for "bye Felicia"
Click to expand...

martinjlm said:
Sounds to me like the decision was made a long time ago and probably linked to the disaster now known as "Gravity Launch". Timing of execution = after the launch is fixed.
...

My point is, the result (Emad's departure; same for Eric's) is likey less an indictment of the quality of their work or their passion for the company and product and more an issue of divergent strategic outlook. Doesn't make anybody feel better. Just demonstrates the ability to read an org chart.
Click to expand...
Just to elaborate on where I'm coming from here...real situation

Person A: Solid senior powertrain engineering executive involved in the development of a large OEM's engines. Everybody who put lines on paper or tested prototypes or ran lab analysis of next generation engine development reported up through this person. Thousands of people. Person A is key to global powertrain strategy and easily one of the top 15 people in the company wrt future product development.

Person B: Solid HR senior executive. Supported several key staff areas, including Person A's staff area.

Person C: Super skilled engineering executive assigned to lead the powertrain engineering organization in a strategic growth country. This placement was to get Person C experience in global operations to prepare Person C for further elevation in the company. "Golden Child" would not be an overstatement.

Person C made a very poor decision in dealing with local suppliers in the country/region that they were responsible for. The decision came to the attention of Person B. Person B consulted with Person A to determine what needed to be done to address the situation. Person A suggested a path that would effectively sweep the problem under the rug and manage "corrective action" within the engineering organization.

The situation came to the attention of the broader OEM company leadership. It was announced that Persons A, B, and C would each be leaving the company to pursue other opportunities. In each case, their departures were handled via "next man up" protocol. The strategies continued, overseen by capable persons who were already in the organization and prepared to step into the former leaders' shoes. I'm sure not one person who has purchased vehicle from this company has experienced negative product experience even though the architect of the company's powertrain strategy had a very untimely exit.

I sense something similar in Emad's case. It very well may be due to something NOT of his personal doing, but related to how he may or may not have handled concerning events within his span of control (Gravity launch?). And assuming he is as talented as we all seem to believe he is, it is likely that the "next man up" has learned from his leadership and is prepared to hit the ground running to implement the things that he was putting in place.
 
DreamTour said:
That's right, you might fire / push them out though if they aren't aligned with the strategic goals.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that excellent cars are no longer a strategic goal for Lucid? Is "Compromise Nothing" obsolete, and the new motto is "It's Good Enough"?
 
tarator said:
So, are you saying that excellent cars are no longer a strategic goal for Lucid? Is "Compromise Nothing" obsolete, and the new motto is "It's Good Enough"?
Click to expand...
This is a strawman. Please don’t mischaracterize arguments like that.

Two things can be true at once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top