It mentions "Overpayment interest for the 2020–2023 disaster period" which I figured could be applied broadly, but I guess that was more my interpretation rather than the intention.
It seems to also argue that we all have claims for lost interest on what we paid to the IRS during the period in question, but that's a stretch. I am getting Wesley Snipes tax advisor vibes here and will move along.
This isn't really a bad thing. Any company that monetizes credit cards can only do so because of their real, core product. They aren't really just banks like people claim. If they didn't fly people places reliably the whole thing collapses.
It's really just a surprising morph of their economic model in the post regulation era.
By "themselves" do you mean Elon Musk? I wasn't under the impression that Tesla was much of a collaborative environment. Musk bans Kanban and Toyota Production System principles after all.
Ultimately the issue is a lack of clear roles and responsibilities of a PM role defined, and a lack of accountability.
I agree with you that the "product org" is an entity that can become a political and bureaucratic entity rather than an enabler.
Personally, I think the Product role should be embedded within engineering teams and report up to the same leaders (level is debatable) so that a bad PM can be dealt with just like a bad engineer. Of course if your company can't get rid of bad engineers either, you have other problems.
And that's how it should work. The article is poorly written, but it does suggest more ownership from roles such as "area leads" which is close to Apple, I guess. With Jobs being the Uber Lead.