Elon Musk welcomes rumored 'Apple Car,' reveals Tesla-to-Apple poaching at about 5:1

1356789

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 169
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,410member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    I don't really see that.  I see Apple's R&D spending the same percentage as always, but because Apple is making more money, that percentage for R&D goes up.  It's what, 3% or something.  It was only a few years ago where people were saying Apple wasn't spending enough on R&D.  So if it was 3% in 2005, and 3% NOW, well Apple would be spending a lot more on R&D.  Especially with how much money they're now making.  

    Except that the 'absolute' dollar need for R&D spending -- which is more akin to a fixed cost -- has nothing necessarily to do with the level of sales. For example, the iPhone is over 50% of sales, but R&D spending on the iPhone has to be nowhere near what it was when the (now nature) product was introduced.
  • Reply 42 of 169
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,410member
    jbdragon wrote: »

    Except Google announces products not ready to be sold yet, or Sells $1500 Beta products and then pulls it from the market screwing their users!!!  Apple doesn't announce anything until it's actually ready to be sold shortly for REAL.   The Nexus Q and Google Glass a saw failing right away for a number of reasons.  IF Apple releases a car at some point, it'll be a product ready to sell.  Hiding a large Car, or a bunch of large cars at that point will be kind of hard to keep hidden though.

    Moreover, the design of their car is laughably sad. It looks like an egg on wheels. The company has zero sense of aesthetics. (Barring its home page; I am impressed that it has been kept as it originally was).
  • Reply 43 of 169
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    I don't really see that.  I see Apple's R&D spending the same percentage as always, but because Apple is making more money, that percentage for R&D goes up.  It's what, 3% or something.  It was only a few years ago where people were saying Apple wasn't spending enough on R&D.  So if it was 3% in 2005, and 3% NOW, well Apple would be spending a lot more on R&D.  Especially with how much money they're now making.  

    True but the question is what they're spending it on. Revenue increases are mostly driven by more and more iPhone sales. I'm not sure what the SEC rules are on classifying something as R&D. Can incremental improvements to existing products be classified as R&D?
  • Reply 44 of 169
    apres587apres587 Posts: 50member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pogo007 View Post



    Guys I think a lot of people don't get this. It's a very bad move if Apple makes a move in the car making industry. Apple has no experience what so ever in this industry. They should stick to what they do best consumer electronics. Many people here will say they have the money too do it, we'll to that I answer that even if you throw all the money you want at it, if you have no experience you won't succeed. Microsoft if living proof that throwing money into things you have no knowledge of is bad. Apple should stick to its core and instead partner with someone in the industry and help them with the user experience design. Anyways that's just my opinion.

     

    History is littered with the remains of companies who “stuck to what they knew best”.  They all did and do what is taught in business schools (i.e. no matter what, stick to your core and traditional business model, and defend & extend your products). But its old-school to think the best way to address emerging consumer and business trends is to ignore them and hunker down to concentrate on your core competency.

     

    Apple, instead, built their company on entering industries in which they had “no experience whatsoever”, as you put it.  They knew little about the music industry, cell phones, consumer financial transactions, watches, etc.  But this sure didn’t stop them from succeeding and transforming those industries.  In fact, “lack of experience” actually benefits Apple by encouraging competitors and everyone else to under-estimate and dismiss them instead of formulating a battle plan.  Remember Ballmer’s and others’ reactions to the iPhone?  Lack of experience makes it so much easier for Apple to march unopposed into “non-core” industries and disrupt them. 

     

    No one is born with experience - you must acquire it. Apple does not allow “lack of experience” to limit them.  Instead, they let it challenge and liberate them. They avoid being burdened by knowledge of how things were historically done. And they could care less about the status quo.  Apple knows little about cars or the auto industry.  Or many other industries.  But they know how to learn, and how to acquire new competencies.  Ignore them at your own peril.

  • Reply 45 of 169
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

     

    Apple won't have to worry about poaching employees once Tesla starts to circle the drain. Two years...tops, Tesla employees will be leaving en masse.

     

    -kpluck




    Why? Just curious.

  • Reply 46 of 169
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member

    There are two acquisitions I'd like to see Apple make: Nokia's Here maps (to provide a quick improvement to Maps, especially internationally) and Tesla (if, in fact, Apple is serious about getting into the car business).

     

    Buying Tesla would likely move the project timeline forward substantially and provide proven talent in product design and infrastructure and operations experience. It could also provide an immediate revenue stream.

     

    The only downside of making such a large acquisition is that they are basically committed much like they were with the Beats deal.

  • Reply 47 of 169
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

     

    There are two acquisitions I'd like to see Apple make: Nokia's Here maps (to provide a quick improvement to Maps, especially internationally) and Tesla (if, in fact, Apple is serious about getting into the car business).

     

    Buying Tesla would likely move the project timeline forward substantially and provide proven talent in product design and infrastructure and operations experience. It could also provide an immediate revenue stream.

     

    The only downside of making such a large acquisition is that they are basically committed much like they were with the Beats deal.


     

    That was post 1,024, just geek observation...

     

    Elon Musk is a visionary and hope he is successful with with his endeavors.  Check out his latest announcement for home batteries scaling for business size and power distribution sizes.  We live in interesting times....

  • Reply 48 of 169
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    [QUOTE]reveals Tesla-to-Apple poaching at about 5:1[/QUOTE]

    ...reveals? i dunno. id say "claims". who can validate it?
  • Reply 49 of 169
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,452member
    apres587 wrote: »
    Apple, instead, built their company on entering industries in which they had “no experience whatsoever”, as you put it.  They knew little about the music industry, cell phones, consumer financial transactions, watches, etc.  But this sure didn’t stop them from succeeding and transforming those industries. 
    You make a number of good points. However. Apple was originally a computer maker. That hasn't changed, they still are. What they did was put computers in music players, into cell phones, into payment systems, and into watches. They didn't get into the music business, Apple isn't creating the content, they just replaced the local record store. They didn't launch a cellular network. They just made your phone do more. They didn't open a bank, or get into the POST business, they just enabled banks and stores to share information via their Apple computers in a mobile device. They haven't replaced the watch, they just put a computer in one.

    So using that analysis, how would this apply to a car? Will Apple open up car dealerships around the world, with service centers that hire mechanics that work with grease and oil? I mean I guess a car is just a giant iPhone when it comes down to hardware, but it involves an enormous investment, far more than anything they have tackled so far. And the risks are much higher. The R&D and fabrication costs are much higher. Not only will they have to engineer the computers that will control these vehicles, they will have to engineer the vehicles themselves on a much larger scale than they ever have, to regulatory standards they have never had to meet before. Now none of this is impossible for a company like Apple, but is it a prudent move? Is it the best path to take a company with its skill set for its shareholders? What does Apple get out of it, other than integrating all of their music, communication, and navigation systems exclusively into a car, something that is presently frustrating them with current car manufacturers. At the end of the day, that's all I as a shareholder cares about. As a consumer, I think and Apple car would be pretty cool especially if they manage to build a car to the same standards they manage to build an iPhone. But those are vastly different prospects. If Apple produced a first generation car that was the safest, most technically advanced, most elegant interface I'd ever seen, for the price of a low-end Mercedes, then I'd probably be interested. But even if they managed all of that and still charged $100K like Tesla, then I'd think again. And frankly I wouldn't be interested in a one-size fits all design approach that works fine for their computers and phones. But things like the watch and cars demand more personalization. I didn't buy a Prius for a number of reasons, chief among them was the way it looked. So back to being a shareholder -- is that a large enough constituency to justify the massive investment to support a car? Or will it be a money losing investment for Apple, propped up by its massive mobile electronics business?
  • Reply 50 of 169
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Marc Newson gave an interview with the Evening Standard. He was asked about Apple and cars and said:



    http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/marc-newson-the-new-guy-behind-the-apple-watch-10229835.html

    He also said he spends 60% of his time at Apple working on "special projects". I'm guessing those special projects have nothing to do with iPhones or Macs.

     

    Great find. Thanks for sharing.

     

    I don't think it was incidental that a long piece on Jony Ive (I believe in the New Yorker) mentioned his and Newson's penchant for watching car racing, particularly the style of car mentioned.

  • Reply 51 of 169
    shenshen Posts: 434member

    I agree. I long for the day that I have to make the choice between a Tesla and an Apple car. Oh twist my arm!

     

    Hurry with the econ model Tesla and the first Apple car, I will need to replace my current car in about 3-4 years...

  • Reply 52 of 169
    shenshen Posts: 434member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post



    So using that analysis, how would this apply to a car? Will Apple open up car dealerships around the world, with service centers that hire mechanics that work with grease and oil?

     

    Funny that even in an article about Tesla, people still equate the old grease monkey under the hood concept with servicing a car. That concept, like the ICE cars that it relates to, is a product of a century we should have already moved past.

  • Reply 53 of 169
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    You make a number of good points. However. Apple was originally a computer maker. That hasn't changed, they still are. What they did was put computers in music players, into cell phones, into payment systems, and into watches. They didn't get into the music business, Apple isn't creating the content, they just replaced the local record store. They didn't launch a cellular network. They just made your phone do more. They didn't open a bank, or get into the POST business, they just enabled banks and stores to share information via their Apple computers in a mobile device. They haven't replaced the watch, they just put a computer in one.



    So using that analysis, how would this apply to a car? Will Apple open up car dealerships around the world, with service centers that hire mechanics that work with grease and oil? I mean I guess a car is just a giant iPhone when it comes down to hardware, but it involves an enormous investment, far more than anything they have tackled so far. And the risks are much higher. The R&D and fabrication costs are much higher. Not only will they have to engineer the computers that will control these vehicles, they will have to engineer the vehicles themselves on a much larger scale than they ever have, to regulatory standards they have never had to meet before. Now none of this is impossible for a company like Apple, but is it a prudent move? Is it the best path to take a company with its skill set for its shareholders? What does Apple get out of it, other than integrating all of their music, communication, and navigation systems exclusively into a car, something that is presently frustrating them with current car manufacturers. At the end of the day, that's all I as a shareholder cares about. As a consumer, I think and Apple car would be pretty cool especially if they manage to build a car to the same standards they manage to build an iPhone. But those are vastly different prospects. If Apple produced a first generation car that was the safest, most technically advanced, most elegant interface I'd ever seen, for the price of a low-end Mercedes, then I'd probably be interested. But even if they managed all of that and still charged $100K like Tesla, then I'd think again. And frankly I wouldn't be interested in a one-size fits all design approach that works fine for their computers and phones. But things like the watch and cars demand more personalization. I didn't buy a Prius for a number of reasons, chief among them was the way it looked. So back to being a shareholder -- is that a large enough constituency to justify the massive investment to support a car? Or will it be a money losing investment for Apple, propped up by its massive mobile electronics business?



    And this is why Apple should buy Tesla if they are interested in getting into the car business. They'd be buying talent and infrastructure and operations experience.

  • Reply 54 of 169
    smalmsmalm Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pogo007 View Post



    Guys I think a lot of people don't get this. It's a very bad move if Apple makes a move in the car making industry. Apple has no experience what so ever in this industry.

    Apple had no experience in this Industrie.

    This is why they started hiring a lot of engineers from Audi, BMW and Mercedes, especially system integration engineers.

     

    And if Apple really wanted to build a car the big automotive suppliers like Bosch, Magna, Continental, Denso or Johnson Controls and independent producers like Valmet or again Magna will be very happy to help...

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

     

    Buying Tesla would likely move the project timeline forward substantially and provide proven talent in product design and infrastructure and operations experience. It could also provide an immediate revenue stream.


    Buying Tesla is a waste of money and that's it.

  • Reply 55 of 169
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    You make a number of good points. However. Apple was originally a computer maker. That hasn't changed, they still are. What they did was put computers in music players, into cell phones, into payment systems, and into watches. They didn't get into the music business, Apple isn't creating the content, they just replaced the local record store. They didn't launch a cellular network. They just made your phone do more. They didn't open a bank, or get into the POST business, they just enabled banks and stores to share information via their Apple computers in a mobile device. They haven't replaced the watch, they just put a computer in one.



    So using that analysis, how would this apply to a car? Will Apple open up car dealerships around the world, with service centers that hire mechanics that work with grease and oil? I mean I guess a car is just a giant iPhone when it comes down to hardware, but it involves an enormous investment, far more than anything they have tackled so far. And the risks are much higher. The R&D and fabrication costs are much higher. Not only will they have to engineer the computers that will control these vehicles, they will have to engineer the vehicles themselves on a much larger scale than they ever have, to regulatory standards they have never had to meet before. Now none of this is impossible for a company like Apple, but is it a prudent move? Is it the best path to take a company with its skill set for its shareholders? What does Apple get out of it, other than integrating all of their music, communication, and navigation systems exclusively into a car, something that is presently frustrating them with current car manufacturers. At the end of the day, that's all I as a shareholder cares about. As a consumer, I think and Apple car would be pretty cool especially if they manage to build a car to the same standards they manage to build an iPhone. But those are vastly different prospects. If Apple produced a first generation car that was the safest, most technically advanced, most elegant interface I'd ever seen, for the price of a low-end Mercedes, then I'd probably be interested. But even if they managed all of that and still charged $100K like Tesla, then I'd think again. And frankly I wouldn't be interested in a one-size fits all design approach that works fine for their computers and phones. But things like the watch and cars demand more personalization. I didn't buy a Prius for a number of reasons, chief among them was the way it looked. So back to being a shareholder -- is that a large enough constituency to justify the massive investment to support a car? Or will it be a money losing investment for Apple, propped up by its massive mobile electronics business?

     

    Cool story bro. "Grease and oil"? How much of that does an electric car need? Oh, at the end of the day one can consider the car a computer on wheels. Thats what its becoming. Mechanics are getting more irrelevant, as an electric car is infinitely simpler than a gasoline powered one, in terms of components. It's absolutely not out of the question that Apple would design and produce a car. Maybe not in the next 5 years, but long term, there's not a single reason why they wouldn't or couldn't. They have the $$$, the motivation, the culture, brand equity, and the skill. The Apple Watch is already radically different than any other product they've sold, in terms of SKUs, marketing strategy, and retail presence. Apple has shown they can adapt and sell a product on its own terms. 

  • Reply 56 of 169
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,765member
    bageljoey wrote: »

    I have not read anything else about this so like all of us here, I can only offer conjecture.
    However, it is not hard to imagine a question or a line of questioning that would force Musk to be "defensive."

    There is no way to answer the above question without being "defensive." And to say that it is unseemly to discuss this in an earnings call is not fair because if he did not address this question he would look as if he were hiding something.

    Why are we being so defensive?

    To whom does your pronoun refer?
  • Reply 57 of 169
    imagladryimagladry Posts: 74member



    Actually, it is about 5:1, about 20,000 for Tesla, and about 100,000 for Apple. That puts it right in line since Apple has about 5 times the number of employees as compared to Tesla.

  • Reply 58 of 169
    indyfxindyfx Posts: 320member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Even if he was specifically asked he doesn't have to answer the question.



    Exactally, particularly specifics (which I'm sure he wasn't asked about) i.e. 60% salary increases and 250K signing bonuses. I don't know how he would be privy to that information anyway (other than hearsay). 

    If asked specifically about poaching from apple he could have said "Tech Company are always hiring proven talent from other companies, and I think if you look you'll find we are poaching about 5 engineers from Apple for every one that goes to them." (if that was indeed true)

     

    Sorry but he (Elon) has dropped several points in my estimation and I have less confidence in his ability to create a viable long term car brand. Not that that matters to him but I have to assume I am the tip of a large iceberg. (i.e. the 2% marketing rule) In terms of creating a sustainable automotive brand that (public) perception matters greatly.

  • Reply 59 of 169
    rcfarcfa Posts: 786member
    spod wrote: »
    Elon Musk said it would be great to see Apple enter the automotive industry

    Umm, I remember when IBM released their first PC to compete with the Apple II. Apple ran an advertising campaign "Welcome IBM. Seriously." We all know what happened in the following decade! Be careful what you say cos Apple might be the beneficiary this time!

    Musk is serious; the reason he opened up Tesla's patent portfolio is because he wants to change the world, and he knows Tesla can't go it alone.

    Apple, or anyone else entering the electric car business is seen as an ally transforming the world to a fossil fuel free transportation infrastructure, not as competition in the currently niche electric car segment.

    More brands, particular ones like Apple, give credibility to the market, and many more customers will be taken from legacy car manufacturers by Tesla and Apple in such a scenario than they would take from each other.
  • Reply 60 of 169
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    To whom does your pronoun refer?

     

     

    Phil:  "What do you need that gun out for?"

    Carol:  "Don't you mean 'Out for what do you need that gun?'"

Sign In or Register to comment.