I would say his industrial design experience at Segway (and Deka) was more relevant to Apple.
Let's not forget history here. Musk had a very hard time releasing the Roadster, and it was one of the most painfully delayed automotive launches in history. They were close to running out of money numerous times in the launch, and needed key loans and cash at key times (including a huge cash infusion from Musk himself) otherwise they would have failed. At least some of that based on the public information at the time can be attributed to Musk's inexperience in the car world.
They made it, but it wasn't without a lot of luck. I worry about decisions like this because if there's one thing Tesla really needs to execute on, it's getting new car models out the door in a very timely fashion.
Another example - Nardelli was also a brilliant leader at Home Depot, but he couldn't do enough to save Chrysler.
The car industry is a very different beast then building wheel chairs and segways. Personally I would prefer someone in the new car development driver's seat with a bit more experience. Putting someone without that experience is such a leadership role seems like a reckless move by Tesla.
This is all just my opinion. I'd be happy to discuss further and share opinions.
No, saying he is a founder is misleading. He played a critical role in Tesla and it surely would have failed if he were not involved but his initial involvement was as an investor in an existing enterprise.
There was a settlement that allows Musk to call himself "founder" in exchange for, I presume, some compensation. There was no legal ruling on facts only a private agreement between parties.
Yes, "that logic" being just plain old "logic". Jobs didn't start Pixar he invested in a spin-out of a division of an existing company.
From wikipedia
"the group, which numbered 40 individuals back then,[1] was spun out as a corporation in February 1986 with investment by Steve Jobs shortly after he left Apple Computer.[1]"
