Suggestions
Boris Khvostichenko
Former Co-founder and CPO at WANNA | ex-Google | ex-BCG
Boris Khvostichenko is an experienced product manager with a consulting background and international experience, known for his interest in early stage startups and leveraging technology to build and enhance businesses. Apart from his professional pursuits, Boris is a passionate cyclist.
Boris completed his postgraduate study and earned a Master's degree from Saint Petersburg State University, laying a strong educational foundation for his career.
Throughout his professional journey, Boris has held key roles in various renowned organizations. He currently serves as the Chief Product Officer at WANNA, demonstrating his leadership and strategic acumen.
Prior to his current position, Boris enriched his expertise at Google, where he contributed significantly as a Product/Program Manager in Personal Search Infrastructure, Product Manager, and Product Manager for Google Calendar. His diverse roles within Google highlight his versatility and proficiency in product management.
Before his tenure at Google, Boris honed his skills at The Boston Consulting Group, progressing from a Consultant to a Senior Associate. His consulting background equipped him with valuable insights and problem-solving capabilities.
Boris also gained corporate experience at Procter & Gamble, where he worked as a Marketing Business Analyst and an IDS Systems Manager. His multifaceted roles at Procter & Gamble underscore his adaptability and business acumen.
Furthermore, Boris began his career as a Software Developer at Russian Personnel Recruiting, showcasing his technical prowess and early interest in the tech industry.
In addition to his professional achievements, Boris Khvostichenko remains dedicated to exploring opportunities in the realm of early stage startups and leveraging technology to drive business growth.
Highlights
Robotaxi ≠ Easy Money.
First, let’s separate self-driving from robotaxi. Self-driving technology is revolutionary - a car with proper self-driving capability is like an iPhone among feature phones, a true game-changer. But turning that into a profitable robotaxi business? That’s a whole different story.
Once the novelty wears off, the real competition with incumbents like Uber will boil down to the basics: wait time, price, and user experience.
Wait time depends on vehicle availability. It’s unlikely that many Tesla owners will lend their cars to the robotaxi network due to concerns about availability, upkeep, and wear-and-tear, especially those with only one vehicle. This means Tesla would need to build and maintain a massive fleet of its own. For context, there are currently about 1.5 million Uber drivers in the U.S. alone - Tesla would need around 750,000 cars to achieve the same availability, which would either significantly increase CAPEX or require partnering with financing companies, thereby raising operating costs.
Now, let’s talk price. Cutting out the driver might seem like an obvious way to slash costs, but it’s not that straightforward. Up to 60% of Uber drivers’ earnings go toward maintenance, fuel, and financing, not to mention the unpaid hours they spend on upkeep. With a Tesla-owned fleet, however, Tesla would bear these costs directly, including the responsibility of keeping every vehicle in peak condition. So whether robotaxis can significantly reduce prices remains to be seen.
In terms of user experience, while self-driving tech can ensure a smooth ride, a robotaxi won’t help you with your luggage or assist someone with limited mobility - areas where human drivers still have the advantage.
And then there’s the wildcard: the liability question. Who takes the blame if something goes wrong when no human is at fault and the car isn’t even owned by the service provider? This issue can and should be resolved, but it will take time due to the maze of local, state, and federal regulations, so it's not going to be easy.
#robotaxi #tesla #businessmodel
Story time.
At some point, Wanna grew, and we realized it was time to change the structure of the engineering org. So, we put on our large corp hats and spent a lot of time discussing various approaches, theories, and possible combinations. In the end, we settled on a solution that worked for us, but it wasn’t obvious and was somewhat hard to explain to the team.
In hindsight, we should have applied reverse Conway's Law: if you already know the product you need to ship, your org chart should mirror that vision. We would have ended up with a very similar org structure, but this approach would have definitely saved us time and added clarity.
#leadership #organization #productdevelopment #startups
