My speculation is that Tim Cook's concern about climate change and move solar energy -- plus new rivalry with Tesla -- plus need for something big and new in future years has led Apple to decide that they are not going to just try to disrupt the auto industry but --
to disrupt the oil business and provide the best cleanest energy system possible for cars in the future.
And the Dodge van is not part of it,that is a mapping vehicle
There's nothing inane about suggesting Apple sometimes leaks to the media. I can't even believe that's causing an argument here. Other than people just want to be dicks. But hey, feel free to put me on ignore and then you don't have to be bothered by inane posts.
You mean you can't believe so many people think you're wrong. And you can only conclude therefore that they must all want to be "dicks."
People have suggested this before. If anything, I think it's far more likely we'll see an announcement from Google about buying Tesla.
Sure but what is interesting in this review is the opinion that Google would be less capable, with its lack of outright cash and infrastructure, to capitalise on a purchase of Tesla than would Apple for example, which would imply that their total cost of ownership would be vastly higher. Apple's overseas cash hoard could enable it to build further infrastructure off-shore too (my thoughts). Tesla is quite popular in Europe, where population centres are typically quite close.
t Google would be less capable, with its lack of outright cash and infrastructure, to capitalise on a purchase of Tesla than would Apple for example
Google is lacking in cash? First mention of that I've seen.
I suppose some people might think having only $60B in cash would be teetering on the edge. Google is obviously doomed...
Like Apple much of Google's cash is technically (but not really) held overseas and thus subject to US taxes if repatriated for something like a $70B purchase of Tesla so what could Google do? Simply do the same as Apple would have to do and borrow the funds via a bond at some ridiculously low interest rate.
With that said I don't see a chance in hell of Google making a run at Tesla. Sounds like a stupid use of resources.
TSLA market cap is $27B and would probably command a nice premium for Google to buy them. Probaby would cost $35B. So yes $60B is very little cash.
Apple doesn't hold much of it's "cash" on hand either. Like Google they hold the bulk of it overseas away from US tax authorities and much of it in long-term securities anyway not quickly convertible to cash.Even Apple would have to borrow to buy Tesla.
To be specific Apple states that as of June 28, 2014 the company had roughly $13 billion in cash and equivalents and $25 billion in short-term investments. The rest is not readily available as cash. I suspect you were not aware of that.
The battery has to be replaced frequently at great expense and time. No such problem with gas.
Tesla batteries have an 8 year warranty, unlimited mileage. Once you've done 80,000 miles in a normal car, it's pretty much done anyway. Batteries also apparently double in capacity every 10 years so by the time a replacement is needed, it could be half the size and weight.
Where do you charge your car? In the UK, at least, this is very limited. Forget charging at home. A large proportion of people live in apartments and leave their car on the street.
They'd need battery switching stations as well as emergency options in case the power ran out. They could always have a warning system that won't shut off and makes you drive to a switching station so you don't run out.
Electric cars are much more expensive than normal ones. Total overall lifetime cost, as well as initial cost, is still much higher than for equivalent gas cars.
They aren't built in large volumes yet and battery costs will come down over time. The same thing gets said about a lot of new technologies - 'it's too expensive it'll never catch on'. The economies of scale work this out over time.
Tesla has nowhere near Apple's billions. They started with under $200m. Apple has $170,000m. They don't have to be as big as companies like GM, they'd hit a similar market to Tesla with a higher unit volume. Tesla does 55,000 cars per year, Apple could build 10x that with a relatively small amount of their current cash and obviously make it all back plus profit when they sell them. It took Tesla about 6 years to produce the first model and given that it took 3-4 years for Apple to make a Watch then 2020 for production is reasonable.
If a car sells at $40k with 5% margin, 30% margin would be $54k. Apple doesn't need to make 40% margin, that's just on the subsidized phones. The Macs do ok with a lower margin than that, they had about 28% margin before the iPhone.
First of all, I don't think Apple necessarily leaked anything. It's just that in order to get serious on this - and the list of new hires on 9to5Mac suggests they are - they have to make big moves (like hiring, acquiring assets, a place to do work, etc) that involve a large number of people. The ripples of these moves - not to mention the large number of people that would have to be in the know to work on this thing, unlike a watch this far in advance - are basically impossible to shield from all view. In other words, it was bound to come out eventually, and sooner than later. We apparently have reached the sooner.
The good news is this: unlike a lot of Apple secret projects, rumors about this one isn't likely to cause anybody to hold off buying existing Apple products. So the need for secrecy is limited to the Apple penchant for big reveals on their timeframe, but doesn't include concerns of financial harm. To the contrary: a rumor like this is exactly what Wall Street has been waiting for. (Yes, I realize that that brings both good and bad aspects.) The persistent (but misguided, IMHO) opinion that Google is always investing in the next big thing is part of what makes investors overlook the fact that Google is currently just a one-trick pony (search) and affords it a healthier P/E than it deserves. Meanwhile, Wall Street has groused that Apple is just a one-trick pony (iPhone) and does NOT afford it any faith in (or credit for) the future. This rumor doesn't hurt in that regard, especially given its long-term nature... it's not likely that the hope or credit will fade for several years unless Apple does something to quash the hope.
With regard to Apple's penchant for the "big reveal", we have discovered that even when leaks occur, there is still enough hype around the reveal to satisfy Apple's goals. So perhaps in this case, where (1) no financial harm is done, (2) Apple is seen as an innovator in something potentially big and bold, and (3) the show will go on even if the existence of a program is fairly well known, it really doesn't matter much to Apple that the cat is partially out of the bag.
For those that might not be aware. Tesla Supercharging station can recharge a battery to 80% in 40 minutes. But if that is not quick enough, there is this option: http://www.teslamotors.com/videos/battery-swap-event
Really -- why? After all, they do have a massive, widely advertised car project going, don't they?
I don't see it as massive, and AFAIK they're reported looking to partner with a manufacturer, not buy them. That's the smarter way to go don't you think? Now Google partnering with Tesla doesn't sound so outrageous. They've already got a good relationship with Musk, partnering with him on another project.
To be specific Apple states that as of June 28, 2014 the company had roughly $13 billion in cash and equivalents and $25 billion in short-term investments. The rest is not readily available as cash. I suspect you were not aware of that.
Actually, Apple has so much cash that exceeds a maturity of one year that it is counted as "long term" under US GAAP.
Look at Apple's Long Term Investments (which is pretty much as good as cash, since it can be converted very quickly). And look at the latest number (Jan 2015).
Comments
When has Apple ever made anything cost less except when it's for themselves?
to disrupt the oil business and provide the best cleanest energy system possible for cars in the future.
And the Dodge van is not part of it,that is a mapping vehicle
Or back to it
This from Design News... speculation but linked for what it's worth:
http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&doc_id=276664&itc=dn_analysis_element&cid=nl.dn14.20150220&dfpPParams=ind_182,industry_auto,industry_consumer,aid_276664&dfpLayout=blog
Not arguing in favour of this analysis but we know that people think this is one possibility.
You mean you can't believe so many people think you're wrong. And you can only conclude therefore that they must all want to be "dicks."
People have suggested this before. If anything, I think it's far more likely we'll see an announcement from Google about buying Tesla.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_controlled_leaks
I think that article qualifies as walking the walk doesn't it?
-
-
-
People have suggested this before. If anything, I think it's far more likely we'll see an announcement from Google about buying Tesla.Sure but what is interesting in this review is the opinion that Google would be less capable, with its lack of outright cash and infrastructure, to capitalise on a purchase of Tesla than would Apple for example, which would imply that their total cost of ownership would be vastly higher. Apple's overseas cash hoard could enable it to build further infrastructure off-shore too (my thoughts). Tesla is quite popular in Europe, where population centres are typically quite close.
Google is lacking in cash? First mention of that I've seen.
I suppose some people might think having only $60B in cash would be teetering on the edge. Google is obviously doomed...
Like Apple much of Google's cash is technically (but not really) held overseas and thus subject to US taxes if repatriated for something like a $70B purchase of Tesla so what could Google do? Simply do the same as Apple would have to do and borrow the funds via a bond at some ridiculously low interest rate.
With that said I don't see a chance in hell of Google making a run at Tesla. Sounds like a stupid use of resources.
TSLA market cap is $27B and would probably command a nice premium for Google to buy them. Probaby would cost $35B. So yes $60B is very little cash.
The premium according to this article could take the purchase price even higher. Easy to speculate to our (collective) hearts' content of course.
To be specific Apple states that as of June 28, 2014 the company had roughly $13 billion in cash and equivalents and $25 billion in short-term investments. The rest is not readily available as cash. I suspect you were not aware of that.
200 miles is fine.
[VIDEO]
Tesla batteries have an 8 year warranty, unlimited mileage. Once you've done 80,000 miles in a normal car, it's pretty much done anyway. Batteries also apparently double in capacity every 10 years so by the time a replacement is needed, it could be half the size and weight.
They'd need battery switching stations as well as emergency options in case the power ran out. They could always have a warning system that won't shut off and makes you drive to a switching station so you don't run out.
They aren't built in large volumes yet and battery costs will come down over time. The same thing gets said about a lot of new technologies - 'it's too expensive it'll never catch on'. The economies of scale work this out over time.
Tesla has nowhere near Apple's billions. They started with under $200m. Apple has $170,000m. They don't have to be as big as companies like GM, they'd hit a similar market to Tesla with a higher unit volume. Tesla does 55,000 cars per year, Apple could build 10x that with a relatively small amount of their current cash and obviously make it all back plus profit when they sell them. It took Tesla about 6 years to produce the first model and given that it took 3-4 years for Apple to make a Watch then 2020 for production is reasonable.
http://ycharts.com/companies/TSLA/gross_profit_margin
If a car sells at $40k with 5% margin, 30% margin would be $54k. Apple doesn't need to make 40% margin, that's just on the subsidized phones. The Macs do ok with a lower margin than that, they had about 28% margin before the iPhone.
They can't announce that now, expectations have been raised. They must be met or extreme disappointment will ensue.
But why leak this stuff now? I don't get it.
First of all, I don't think Apple necessarily leaked anything. It's just that in order to get serious on this - and the list of new hires on 9to5Mac suggests they are - they have to make big moves (like hiring, acquiring assets, a place to do work, etc) that involve a large number of people. The ripples of these moves - not to mention the large number of people that would have to be in the know to work on this thing, unlike a watch this far in advance - are basically impossible to shield from all view. In other words, it was bound to come out eventually, and sooner than later. We apparently have reached the sooner.
The good news is this: unlike a lot of Apple secret projects, rumors about this one isn't likely to cause anybody to hold off buying existing Apple products. So the need for secrecy is limited to the Apple penchant for big reveals on their timeframe, but doesn't include concerns of financial harm. To the contrary: a rumor like this is exactly what Wall Street has been waiting for. (Yes, I realize that that brings both good and bad aspects.) The persistent (but misguided, IMHO) opinion that Google is always investing in the next big thing is part of what makes investors overlook the fact that Google is currently just a one-trick pony (search) and affords it a healthier P/E than it deserves. Meanwhile, Wall Street has groused that Apple is just a one-trick pony (iPhone) and does NOT afford it any faith in (or credit for) the future. This rumor doesn't hurt in that regard, especially given its long-term nature... it's not likely that the hope or credit will fade for several years unless Apple does something to quash the hope.
With regard to Apple's penchant for the "big reveal", we have discovered that even when leaks occur, there is still enough hype around the reveal to satisfy Apple's goals. So perhaps in this case, where (1) no financial harm is done, (2) Apple is seen as an innovator in something potentially big and bold, and (3) the show will go on even if the existence of a program is fairly well known, it really doesn't matter much to Apple that the cat is partially out of the bag.
Thompson
For those that might not be aware. Tesla Supercharging station can recharge a battery to 80% in 40 minutes. But if that is not quick enough, there is this option: http://www.teslamotors.com/videos/battery-swap-event
I'm thinking that they are doing this just to drive Samsung even more crazy than they already are?
You mean you can't believe so many people think you're wrong. And you can only conclude therefore that they must all want to be "dicks."
I don't think (s)he's wrong. The number of people with a pov ? its validity.
With that said I don't see a chance in hell of Google making a run at Tesla. Sounds like a stupid use of resources.
Really -- why? After all, they do have a massive, widely advertised car project going, don't they?
I don't see it as massive, and AFAIK they're reported looking to partner with a manufacturer, not buy them. That's the smarter way to go don't you think? Now Google partnering with Tesla doesn't sound so outrageous. They've already got a good relationship with Musk, partnering with him on another project.
To be specific Apple states that as of June 28, 2014 the company had roughly $13 billion in cash and equivalents and $25 billion in short-term investments. The rest is not readily available as cash. I suspect you were not aware of that.
Actually, Apple has so much cash that exceeds a maturity of one year that it is counted as "long term" under US GAAP.
Look at Apple's Long Term Investments (which is pretty much as good as cash, since it can be converted very quickly). And look at the latest number (Jan 2015).