The secret sauce of Tesla is Elon. If he sell and leave, the magic is gone and value cut in half.
How so? I realize lots of people have a chub for the guy with the funny name, but since he isn't an auto engineer what makes him essential? Could not another chief executive manage the other executives who manage the engineers? Jobs was similar and Apple has not only survived, but thrived after his departure from life. (And to poo poo any naysayers, my Mac and iPhone and Watch and everything else are fantastic and the best versions I've ever owned.)
When Elon started SpaceX and work in Tesla, he knew little about making electric car or rocket. But he learn very fast from expert in the field and go very deep. Now, he knows almost as much as a rocket scientist or a car maker. Of course not to the finest details because no one knows all the details.
This is what set him apart from many CEO. He is not just manage the company but he actually knows how most things works. And he is not a very good at managing a company but he is a visionary. Which makes home special
If buying Tesla meant bring Musk into Apple, I can see why Cook said no. Either way, Apple has never been the first to market new technologies. They just seem to do it better than others, at least, as far as hardware is concerned.
You mean Cook was concerned he'd be bringing in a younger, more passionate, generally well liked forward looking visionary that was likely to end up as his replacement? Yeah I can see why he said no too.
If buying Tesla meant bring Musk into Apple, I can see why Cook said no. Either way, Apple has never been the first to market new technologies. They just seem to do it better than others, at least, as far as hardware is concerned.
You mean Cook was concerned he'd be bringing in a younger, more passionate, generally well liked forward looking visionary that was likely to end up as his replacement? Yeah I can see why he said no too.
Do you really think that Musk could run Apple as well or better than Cook? I really like Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX for a huge number of reasons, but not for a minute would I want to see Apple run by Musk.
If buying Tesla meant bring Musk into Apple, I can see why Cook said no. Either way, Apple has never been the first to market new technologies. They just seem to do it better than others, at least, as far as hardware is concerned.
You mean Cook was concerned he'd be bringing in a younger, more passionate, generally well liked forward looking visionary that was likely to end up as his replacement? Yeah I can see why he said no too.
Do you really think that Musk could run Apple as well or better than Cook? I really like Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX for a huge number of reasons, but not for a minute would I want to see Apple run by Musk.
From the point of view of a short-term investor, no he could not, but from the point of view of a long-term investor, the general public, or actual Apple users, I'm sure he could. Jobs couldn't make Apple as financially successful as Cook, but that's because unlike Cook, Jobs' primary motivation wasn't share price and profit, it was to make the best and most innovative product; similarly to Musk. Musk oozes excitement and very much has Jobs's "think different" DNA; he captivates people's thoughts and admiration. How often do you think the general public thinks or speaks about Cook vs Musk? Outside of Apple circles, who even knows Cook exists?
If buying Tesla meant bring Musk into Apple, I can see why Cook said no. Either way, Apple has never been the first to market new technologies. They just seem to do it better than others, at least, as far as hardware is concerned.
You mean Cook was concerned he'd be bringing in a younger, more passionate, generally well liked forward looking visionary that was likely to end up as his replacement? Yeah I can see why he said no too.
Do you really think that Musk could run Apple as well or better than Cook? I really like Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX for a huge number of reasons, but not for a minute would I want to see Apple run by Musk.
From the point of view of a short-term investor, no he could not, but from the point of view of a long-term investor, the general public, or actual Apple users, I'm sure he could. Jobs couldn't make Apple as financially successful as Cook, but that's because unlike Cook, Jobs' primary motivation wasn't share price and profit, it was to make the best and most innovative product; similarly to Musk. Musk oozes excitement and very much has Jobs's "think different" DNA; he captivates people's thoughts and admiration. How often do you think the general public thinks or speaks about Cook vs Musk? Outside of Apple circles, who even knows Cook exists?
Long term investors appreciate what Cook offers Apple. Apple hasn't been the sportily upstart or resilient underdog for a very long time. Musk would not help Apple in its current state of success.
Half of Tesla’s value at any given time is related to Musk. The only reason to acquire Tesla for Apple would be if they wanted Musk as the next CEO of Apple, and I think they’d be crazy to want that.
If anything I think Elon would have been offering to sell to Apple in the hopes that he could replace Tim as CEO, and Tim is not that naive. Musk is not the sort of person who works well reporting to others.
Apple got rid of Forestall who as far as I can tell is easily more flat out brilliant than Musk, because Forestall didn’t get along with other people on the exec team. If they didn’t keep Forestall, there’s no way they’d bring on Musk.
The secret sauce of Tesla is Elon. If he sell and leave, the magic is gone and value cut in half.
The production volume of Tesla at that time,2017, is really low around 110k. So if you divide by $60B, it is really expensive.
Elon Musk is to Tesla like Steve Jobs was to Apple. In this case, I think it's more so Elon as I think many want to work at Tesla (and SpaceX) specifically because of Elon running the show.
Tim Cook is a fantastic, amazing CEO. That being said, he's not the visionary and disruptor like Steve Jobs was.
Not so sure about that. The Apple Watch came about under Cook, and along with it the health initiatives which are still growing.
We don’t know if Musk is Tesla’s Steve Jobs because he hasn’t had the chance to prove it yet. What makes Jobs one of the greatest CEO’s in tech history is the fact that he structured the company to surpass his accomplishments after he’d gone.
If buying Tesla meant bring Musk into Apple, I can see why Cook said no. Either way, Apple has never been the first to market new technologies. They just seem to do it better than others, at least, as far as hardware is concerned.
You mean Cook was concerned he'd be bringing in a younger, more passionate, generally well liked forward looking visionary that was likely to end up as his replacement? Yeah I can see why he said no too.
You mean he was worried about bringing in man who’d call a rescue worker a paedophile because he wouldn’t use one of his gadgets?
If Cook was worried about younger, popular visionary types then he’d have fired Craig Federighi
Half of Tesla’s value at any given time is related to Musk. The only reason to acquire Tesla for Apple would be if they wanted Musk as the next CEO of Apple, and I think they’d be crazy to want that.
If anything I think Elon would have been offering to sell to Apple in the hopes that he could replace Tim as CEO, and Tim is not that naive. Musk is not the sort of person who works well reporting to others.
Apple got rid of Forestall who as far as I can tell is easily more flat out brilliant than Musk, because Forestall didn’t get along with other people on the exec team. If they didn’t keep Forestall, there’s no way they’d bring on Musk.
Forestall? The guy who said Apple Maps was good to go?
Right.
Swanning around the office in a black polo-neck doesn’t make you Steve Jobs. Ask Elizabeth Holmes.
If buying Tesla meant bring Musk into Apple, I can see why Cook said no. Either way, Apple has never been the first to market new technologies. They just seem to do it better than others, at least, as far as hardware is concerned.
You mean Cook was concerned he'd be bringing in a younger, more passionate, generally well liked forward looking visionary that was likely to end up as his replacement? Yeah I can see why he said no too.
Do you really think that Musk could run Apple as well or better than Cook? I really like Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX for a huge number of reasons, but not for a minute would I want to see Apple run by Musk.
From the point of view of a short-term investor, no he could not, but from the point of view of a long-term investor, the general public, or actual Apple users, I'm sure he could. Jobs couldn't make Apple as financially successful as Cook, but that's because unlike Cook, Jobs' primary motivation wasn't share price and profit, it was to make the best and most innovative product; similarly to Musk. Musk oozes excitement and very much has Jobs's "think different" DNA; he captivates people's thoughts and admiration. How often do you think the general public thinks or speaks about Cook vs Musk? Outside of Apple circles, who even knows Cook exists?
Long term investors appreciate what Cook offers Apple. Apple hasn't been the sportily upstart or resilient underdog for a very long time. Musk would not help Apple in its current state of success.
That is exactly right. They’re now the behemoth that many older Apple fans wanted them to fight.
McLaren is the Apple of the automotive industry. And McLaren's market capitalization is dirt cheap, probably around $2 billion. Apple's HQ design is even a copy of McLaren's. That's who I wish Apple would buy.
The McLaren Design Centre and Apple’s Campus were both designed by the same company, Foster Partners so it’s not surprising there’s similarity. Though Apple’s HQ is more a visual copy of a GCHQ’s ‘Doughnut’ main building.
Tim should at least talk, I'm so frustrated that he refused to do "cool" products. But from Apple's point of view, I would probably not acquire with 50 billion, albeit I would definitely arrange a meeting with Elon, because there's too much overlapping core technologies between what Tesla could bring in and what Apple has been investigating on, plus Tesla's factories, it was worth 10 - 15 billion maximum, the money could be better spent. But at least talk, Tim Cook, see what they were working on!!!
You know, it's easy to see patterns and think it obvious that people at least should talk, but people always want to talk… lots of people… and at a certain level even having taken a simple meeting might sway stock prices, or end you up in court because someone thinks you stole an idea, or having the meeting forces your thinking into the style of thinking that makes you stuck with someone else's approach to solving certain problems.
So it isn't as simple as the one taking the meeting gets free information without any risk/cost.
As a techie I've had lots of ideas where I then simply haven't been able to get a meeting with the right person to help them improve their sales, or lines of products, or whatever; and it's both their and my loss, but the matter of the fact is that they didn't owe me their time to begin with.
I've also not taken meetings myself, that I later on realised cost me a lot in unrealised potential; but that's also saved me from wasting about a gazillion and a half of hours on projects that have gone absolutely nowhere.
So, yeah, it's always a gamble; and you must value your time, and invest it right.
Perhaps not buying Tesla might have been the biggest mistake ever in Apple's history; but Elon wouldn't have wanted to sell if he hadn't thought Tesla was about to crash, so Apple got offered to spend 60 billion to cash out a founder that thought he'd failed. And without Elon being forced to keep at it perhaps it would have failed.
To me, (the fact that Tim Cook refused to buy Tesla) that seems to fit with the idea recently floated by AI that Tesla is overvalued. Perhaps by a factor of 10.
Even Musk has said Tesla is over valued, even rational investors are concerned. However I doubt that Tim refused based on this concern, it is very likely that they are too far into their own development.
Tim should at least talk, I'm so frustrated that he refused to do "cool" products. But from Apple's point of view, I would probably not acquire with 50 billion, albeit I would definitely arrange a meeting with Elon, because there's too much overlapping core technologies between what Tesla could bring in and what Apple has been investigating on, plus Tesla's factories, it was worth 10 - 15 billion maximum, the money could be better spent. But at least talk, Tim Cook, see what they were working on!!!
I'm not sure I agree, Apple has been doing a lot of cool stuff lately.
The secret sauce of Tesla is Elon. If he sell and leave, the magic is gone and value cut in half.
How so? I realize lots of people have a chub for the guy with the funny name, but since he isn't an auto engineer what makes him essential? Could not another chief executive manage the other executives who manage the engineers? Jobs was similar and Apple has not only survived, but thrived after his departure from life. (And to poo poo any naysayers, my Mac and iPhone and Watch and everything else are fantastic and the best versions I've ever owned.)
When Elon started SpaceX and work in Tesla, he knew little about making electric car or rocket. But he learn very fast from expert in the field and go very deep. Now, he knows almost as much as a rocket scientist or a car maker. Of course not to the finest details because no one knows all the details.
This is what set him apart from many CEO. He is not just manage the company but he actually knows how most things works. And he is not a very good at managing a company but he is a visionary. Which makes home special
Musk is the classic executive that really knows what his product is and how it is made. Not too many these days come close. In fact the worse example of an executive these days is the guy that claims he doesn't need to know the details to manage. Musk is the exact opposite, an engineer that truly understands what all his companies do. This actually sets him apart from Cook whom has a more narrow view of what the company (Apple) does.
If buying Tesla meant bring Musk into Apple, I can see why Cook said no. Either way, Apple has never been the first to market new technologies. They just seem to do it better than others, at least, as far as hardware is concerned.
You mean Cook was concerned he'd be bringing in a younger, more passionate, generally well liked forward looking visionary that was likely to end up as his replacement? Yeah I can see why he said no too.
Do you really think that Musk could run Apple as well or better than Cook? I really like Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX for a huge number of reasons, but not for a minute would I want to see Apple run by Musk.
Apple would benefit from the energy that Musk would bring to the company. Imagine new or upgraded PC's every six months with upgrades that add real value.
Comments
At $60B I could see why Apple didn't bite. With $25B they could start R&D and get prototypes out. With Apple's expertise maybe even less $$$.
If Cook was worried about younger, popular visionary types then he’d have fired Craig Federighi
Forestall? The guy who said Apple Maps was good to go?
That is exactly right. They’re now the behemoth that many older Apple fans wanted them to fight.
So it isn't as simple as the one taking the meeting gets free information without any risk/cost.
As a techie I've had lots of ideas where I then simply haven't been able to get a meeting with the right person to help them improve their sales, or lines of products, or whatever; and it's both their and my loss, but the matter of the fact is that they didn't owe me their time to begin with.
I've also not taken meetings myself, that I later on realised cost me a lot in unrealised potential; but that's also saved me from wasting about a gazillion and a half of hours on projects that have gone absolutely nowhere.
So, yeah, it's always a gamble; and you must value your time, and invest it right.
Perhaps not buying Tesla might have been the biggest mistake ever in Apple's history; but Elon wouldn't have wanted to sell if he hadn't thought Tesla was about to crash, so Apple got offered to spend 60 billion to cash out a founder that thought he'd failed. And without Elon being forced to keep at it perhaps it would have failed.
Even Musk has said Tesla is over valued, even rational investors are concerned. However I doubt that Tim refused based on this concern, it is very likely that they are too far into their own development.
I'm not sure I agree, Apple has been doing a lot of cool stuff lately.
Musk is the classic executive that really knows what his product is and how it is made. Not too many these days come close. In fact the worse example of an executive these days is the guy that claims he doesn't need to know the details to manage. Musk is the exact opposite, an engineer that truly understands what all his companies do. This actually sets him apart from Cook whom has a more narrow view of what the company (Apple) does.
Apple would benefit from the energy that Musk would bring to the company. Imagine new or upgraded PC's every six months with upgrades that add real value.