Why does the technology industry always have archrivals: Edison-Tesla or Musk-Altman

Last weekend, I read a series of articles about the latest quarrel between Elon Musk and Sam Altman on Twitter, after Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for allegedly stealing trade secrets. Musk called Altman "Scam Altman", Altman responded by sarcastically mocking Musk's dream of a data center in space, then the two continued to curse each other for a few more rounds. After reading it, I suddenly realized: this is not the first time the technology industry has had a pair of rivals openly hate each other to the point of turning it into a form of entertainment content for the public to watch. From the days of Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla to Musk and Altman today, it seems that every period of technology boom gives birth to a pair of rivals that act as mirrors for the entire industry.

The war on electricity: when technology still had no common name

The most famous rivalry in the history of technology is probably the "war of electricity" between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla in the late 19th century. Edison supported direct current, while Tesla, then working with George Westinghouse, promoted alternating current. This was not simply a technical debate, but became a fierce media campaign in which Edison publicly demonstrated shocking experiments to prove that alternating current was dangerous.

In the end, alternating current prevailed due to its efficiency in transmitting electricity over long distances, but it is worth mentioning that this confrontation shaped the way the public understood the electricity industry for decades to come. I think this is the earliest example that shows: when a technology is too new for the public to evaluate for themselves, the story of two individuals confronting each other is much easier to understand and follow than explaining the technical nature.

Jobs and Gates: opponents but not enemies

Another couple more familiar to technology users is Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. During the 1980s and 1990s, Apple and Microsoft competed fiercely on all fronts, from operating systems to graphical interfaces, and many times openly criticized each other in the press, from perspectives, product making to management. But there is one big difference from later pairs of competitors: when Apple almost went bankrupt in 1997, Microsoft itself invested $150 million to keep the company afloat, partly out of fear of being accused of monopoly if there were no competitors left in the personal computer operating system market.

I find this detail interesting because it shows that even the fiercest competitors in the technology industry sometimes understand that the existence of the other side is beneficial to them — a form of competition that needs a counterweight to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of regulators and the public.

Musk and Bezos: when space becomes the new stage

Entering the 21st century, the stage of technological confrontations gradually shifted from personal computers to outer space, with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos as the two central figures. Musk's SpaceX and Bezos' Blue Origin have clashed many times, from a patent dispute over rocket landing technology around 2013, to public battles on social networks every time one side reaches a new milestone.

There is one detail I remember quite clearly: when Blue Origin successfully launched the New Shepard rocket and landed it vertically at the end of 2015, Musk publicly pointed out that it was a completely different achievement than putting a rocket into orbit, which SpaceX did soon after with Falcon 9. This confrontation is not just a personal matter, but reflects two very different philosophies of space development: one runs fast and accepts public risks, the other quietly and more cautiously.

Why is this motif repeated?

Looking back at these three examples, I realize one thing in common: each pair of competitors appeared right at the stage when technology was transforming into a new state that the public was not familiar with: from electricity, to personal computers, to private space, and now artificial intelligence. When technology was too complex or too abstract to explain directly, stories about people, about ambition, ego, and personal conflicts, became the easiest way for the public to follow and have a side to support. The media also has an incentive to exploit this, because a conflict story between two characters is always easier to write and easier to spread than a purely technical analysis article. Today's incident between Musk and Altman is perhaps the latest, most intense version of this motif. What makes it more special than previous cases are its deep personal roots: the two were co-founders of OpenAI in 2015, before Musk left in 2018 after his proposal to take control of the company was rejected. Musk then founded a direct competitor, xAI, which has now merged with SpaceX to become SpaceXAI, while Altman continues to lead OpenAI to become the world's most valuable AI company. Unlike Edison-Tesla or Musk-Bezos, this is a breakup between people who once lived under the same roof, making the conflict much more personal than simply two companies competing for market share.

Worth watching next

If we look at historical motifs, these types of confrontations often do not end in a clear victory for one side, but gradually fade as the technology becomes popular and the public no longer needs a character story to understand it. Alternating current has finally become the undisputed standard, Apple and Microsoft now cooperate more than they compete, and SpaceX and Blue Origin still compete but are less noisy now that both have their own place. The open question with the Musk-Altman case is: when the AI ​​industry matures enough and language models become familiar infrastructure like electricity or operating systems, will this confrontation subside according to the old rules, or because the personal roots are so deep, it will be a rare case that lasts despite the technology being stable.