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

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 169
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

     



    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.




    I'd buy into that. But it's funny how people think an electric car no longer needs grease, lubrication, and fluids to service all the moving parts. There may not be engine oil, but everything from the gears, to the brakes, to the rotars and suspension, coolant etc. will need lubricants, fluids, and maintenance.

  • Reply 62 of 169
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tekM View Post

     



    Meanwhile, Tesla just posted 142 million loss for the quarter... to go along with their near half a billion loss for 2014.  That's why their name and logo are always in 'red'.




    If they just made Model S's and sold them, they would be profitable. The loss is only because they are investing so much in future products and expanding manufacturing capacity. Running a loss is actually the smart thing to do at this point in the life of the company.

  • Reply 63 of 169
    tekmtekm Posts: 14member

    I misquoted the loss... its actually 154.2 million loss if I remember right.... but yea I realize they are investing the future.  I'm just disappointed that he Model X won't be on sale until late 2017 early 2018.  Ugh.  And they will need to refresh the Model S somewhere along the way as well.

  • Reply 64 of 169
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,491member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

     



    Well, it's my opinion is that your opinion stinks.

     

    Did Apple have experience in the mobile telephone industry? Nope. Look where the Apple iPhone 6/6+ are now.

     

    Experience is highly overrated. Look what "experience" did and is still doing for Detroit! Ghost town. American made IC engine cars suck. The old dealership business model is stacking up un-sold cars all over the planet.

     

    But now there's a new American car company, Tesla, that doesn't suck. Its cars are awesome and are selling as fast as they can be made.

     

    I think all your glorious experience can remain where it belongs, in the irrelevant past.

     

    I don't see why an Apple acquisition of Tesla wouldn't make sense. Their products are already very nice. But I think Sir Jony could add those magical touches inside and out which could make electric cars really shine, and consequently put the US back in the automotive business, and all the while materially effect a significant slow-down of global pollution.




    A smartphone, for all intents and purposes, is a computer.   Apple knew how to make and sell computers.   The big leap that Apple made in smartphones was in user interface and in the eco-system.   Apple knew user-interface and had already launched the iTunes eco-system.   Phones and computers are relatively high margin items.

     

    Automobiles are very low-margin items with very high capital costs and in fact, most of the profits are in the financing and in options.   While Apple has experience in industrial design, making a car body is something way beyond what they've ever accomplished before.   While there are some government regulations on smartphones, cars have much more stringent government regulations and there's more variance from country to country.  

     

    Just about every product Apple ever made was profitable out of the gate.   Look how long it's taking Tesla to be profitable.    And if Apple were to manufacture the car in the U.S., they'd be paying much higher wages than they're used to paying for manufacturing and there's a good chance the factory could become unionized at some point.  In addition, unlike iPhone and most computer manufacturing, Apple would probably have to own the factory.    Can you imagine how much Wall Street would punish Apple's stock if it took a decade for the car to become profitable and was very low margin when it did?

     

    I think all this talk about Apple becoming a car company is absurd.   And electric cars are going to continue to have limitations for decades.  Large cities are not going to install charging stations in the streets for everyone and apartment buildings are not going to install them in their garages.    Without radical upgrades to the technology, charging times are too long except for those people who can charge in their homes overnight.    

     

    Apple making heads-up displays and other enhancements to cars?  Sure.    Apple re-doing the entire dashboard and HVAC/media system in cars?  Sure.    But making their own car?  I don't think so.   I'd sooner believe that Apple is working on robotics and A.I. (and I believe in 20 years, Apple will indeed be a robotics company).  

     

    As for acquiring Tesla, assuming Apple didn't do a hostile acquisition, why would Musk want to sell and why would Apple want to buy it?

  • Reply 65 of 169
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member

    If you're going to go with Carol use the proper one.
    400
  • Reply 66 of 169
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

     

    Apple knew user-interface and had already launched the iTunes eco-system.   Phones and computers are relatively high margin items.

     

    Automobiles are very low-margin items with very high capital costs and in fact, most of the profits are in the financing and in options. 

     

     Look how long it's taking Tesla to be profitable.    

     

    Can you imagine how much Wall Street would punish Apple's stock if it took a decade for the car to become profitable and was very low margin when it did?


     

    This. The stockholders won't sit still for a massive startup capitalization, with resultantly low profit margins. And there's no practical way around that. Perhaps ?Pay is Apple's foray into banking, and they will indeed become their own financing company, selling the car with such high margins that the only way to afford it for most is by financing it. There would still have to be a correspondingly high interest rate to offset low volume sales which might make it equally unattractive, and still others who would bring outside financing (unless Apple refused that without a 30% fee which would make it unattractive as well).

     

    However, if Apple is looking at 2020 or beyond, after self-driving cars become a reality, I could see Apple creating a car that's basically a living room on wheels, loaded with an entertainment center. Gauges and the like would be a thing of the past, as the computer system would monitor all of the cars systems, and self-driving the car to Apple when it needs service. But I have a hard time seeing them building a traditional user-driven automobile, even if it is all electric. If Apple is planning on doing cars, I hope it's this, and not trying to compete head-to-head with Tesla on the current playing field.

  • Reply 67 of 169
    sentosasentosa Posts: 8member

    Elon Musk to all of the Apple employees...

     

    "Do you want to want to sell the the same product, maybe thinner for the rest of your life or do you want to come with me and change the world?"

  • Reply 68 of 169
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snova View Post

     

    it would be interesting if that happened.  Partnership might be best for both parties.  All the best to Mr. Musk 


    Why bother? Apple can just use 10% of cash pile to buy off Tesla.

  • Reply 69 of 169
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

     

    As for acquiring Tesla, assuming Apple didn't do a hostile acquisition, why would Musk want to sell and why would Apple want to buy it?


     

    The reason for acquiring Tesla would be to address many of the pitfalls you mentioned - a Tesla acquisition would provide manufacturing, operations and regulatory experience in addition to experienced engineers. Apple could develop all these on its own but buying Tesla would be a reasonable shortcut.

     

    You may be right about Musk not wanting to sell but, if the offer were right, Musk would owe it to the shareholders to consider it.

     

    My personal preference is that Apple would stay closer to its area of expertise and have them focus on home automation (I think they made a mistake in letting Google acquire Nest) rather than a car but, if they are intent on doing a car, buying Tesla makes some sense.

  • Reply 70 of 169
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Cool story bro. "Grease and oil"? How much of that does an electric car need?

    Plenty, wheels turn and rotate, and need grease and oil to function regardless of what drives the car.
  • Reply 71 of 169
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,064member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

     

    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.  


     

    I somehow doubt Apple's yearly budget is based on revenue percentages.  How would the heads of R&D deal with the sudden influx of money in a blockbuster year?  Would they just fritter it away on whatever they arbitrarily felt like until revenues went back to normality?

     

    No, Apple is smarter than that, they spend on R&D when it is warranted by product development and/or when they have particular strategic plans.

  • Reply 72 of 169
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    penchanted wrote: »
    The reason for acquiring Tesla would be to address many of the pitfalls you mentioned - a Tesla acquisition would provide manufacturing, operations and regulatory experience in addition to experienced engineers. Apple could develop all these on its own but buying Tesla would be a reasonable shortcut.

    You may be right about Musk not wanting to sell but, if the offer were right, Musk would owe it to the shareholders to consider it.

    My personal preference is that Apple would stay closer to its area of expertise and have them focus on home automation (I think they made a mistake in letting Google acquire Nest) rather than a car but, if they are intent on doing a car, buying Tesla makes some sense.

    You do know that Tesla isn't patenting anything? Every breakthrough they make will be used immediately by the competition.
  • Reply 73 of 169
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     



    I'd buy into that. But it's funny how people think an electric car no longer needs grease, lubrication, and fluids to service all the moving parts. There may not be engine oil, but everything from the gears, to the brakes, to the rotars and suspension, coolant etc. will need lubricants, fluids, and maintenance.


    With current technology, none of these may be needed for the life of the car. My BMW didn't need any of these and I'm at 170k miles except engine oil, filter and brake parts. That means you just replace the part if it exceeds the lifespan including transmission. However, this doesn't mean mechanics are not needed, but less relevant.

    BTW, why do you even need coolant for the electric car?

  • Reply 74 of 169
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    You do know that Tesla isn't patenting anything? Every breakthrough they make will be used immediately by the competition.

     

    Tesla has patented loads of stuff.  Hence the big furore over them open sourcing/licesning their patents.

  • Reply 75 of 169
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    crowley wrote: »
    Tesla has patented loads of stuff.  Hence the big furore over them open sourcing/licesning their patents.

    Same result.
  • Reply 76 of 169
    sentosasentosa Posts: 8member

    Tesla is what Apple used to be!

     

    I love Apple but you can't say that in the last few years they have been innovative. If I were an engineer I would rather work at Tesla than the next ipad to be 0.001mm thinner!

  • Reply 77 of 169
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Same result.

    No it's not. If Apple acquire Tesla, they may change not to license the patents anymore. If Tesla technologies are not patented, then everyone can still use them regardless who acquires Tesla.

  • Reply 78 of 169
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    fallenjt wrote: »
    BTW, why do you even need coolant for the electric car?

    There is a cooling/heating system for the main battery to keep it in its optimum operating temperature range.
  • Reply 79 of 169
    crowleycrowley Posts: 6,064member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Same result.

     

    Apart from you being unequivocally wrong.

     

    And, in answer to your post, only until it's not.

  • Reply 80 of 169
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

     

    With current technology, none of these may be needed for the life of the car. My BMW didn't need any of these and I'm at 170k miles except engine oil, filter and brake parts. That means you just replace the part if it exceeds the lifespan including transmission. However, this doesn't mean mechanics are not needed, but less relevant.




    Understood, but my original point is that Apple would still have to build a network of garages where mechanics got their fingernails dirty working with these parts. Aside from engine oil, there's still air filters, tires and brakes, but you may be right, it might be  a year before they would need to do any serious maintenance, but it will eventually be routine on older cars -- that just briefly puts off the inevitable for Apple. Then again, after 3 years, Apple might just stop upgrading your software, forcing the consumer to upgrade before any maintenance is needed. ;-)

Sign In or Register to comment.