I don't get it. What is Apple trying to do if not autonomous driving. By 2020, there will be multiple EVs out at various price ranges with ranges of 200-400 miles; and cars generally are very good already with extremely advanced safety features and superb handling. The ONLY thing where Apple could leapfrog the competition is autonomous driving. Everything else they would barely catch up. This is surely bigger than just another EV; it must include some big development.
(Not saying THIS report is true but) I called this last week.
Apple will most likely not offer an autonomous car day one. That's nuts. It's a lot safer to offer an electric vehicle with hundreds of sensors and compile all this data on a server back at the lab to better understand driving, mapping, roads, elevation and accidents etc.
I'd say after 2-10 years they'll have enough data to develop a near flawless vehicle. I'd say 2 years later at the LEAST. Then there's all the old farts in congress who would have to allow new laws and the outdated road tech currently in use(traffic lights, construction/light up/road signs, lanes) that may or may need updating.
Cars (even the relatively simple electric models) need an enormous supply chain. They also need mechanics. Not technicians, not geniuses. Mechanics. Just because it doesn't have an internal combustion engine doesn't mean it doesn't have moving parts.
I know they're a smart company and have thought about all this. Kinda surprised they're going all the way like this though.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/191133/sog35" style="display:inline-block;">@sog35</a>
said 'far less moving parts'. Totally different than saying 'no moving parts'. The difference with an electric car is the customer never has to touch any messy or dirty parts. For the most part Tesla technicians never get dirty. They work all day and go home as clean as they were to start the day.
He also said that they not greasy, and anything that has wheels especially ones that turn is going to be greasy.
My guess would be the $55,000 - $75,000 range. The sweet spot for sufficiently large quantity, reasonably comfortable margins, and yet be considered 'luxury'.
There will be a rose gold-plated version of the $75,000 configuration, for $225,000.
That's too much; higher in the demos of the low end late model Iphone and restricts revenues too much.
I'd go from 40K to 80K. 40K is the low end of most luxury makers right now.
They'll do the financing themselves also I bet.
They're not financing the iPhone themselves, so what makes you think they'll finance cars?
He and I have alread replied because I wasn't trolling. My point is that Apple has a bad track record with 1.0 products in new categories and that I'd rather buy a car from a car company for the first few iterations.
Gotta love the hate this forum greets people with though.
Get this: Tesla could not even get a loan a few months ago!!! No one would even loan them money because they are so much in debt and keep losing money every quarter!!! BOA, WellsFargo, Chase......no one would loan them money. Its crazy that a company that supposidly is worth $35 billion could not even get a loan!!!
To keep the Company running Musk had to do a personal guarantee and they had to sell more stock.
on the other hand Apple has more money than it can spend. You bet they wont take any short cuts or lack talent.
I do get that: Tesla needed to raise capital and their debt to equity ratio was too high to borrow more. So, with
their stock price sky high, they decided to sell 2.7 million shares to the public. What better time to do it? They raised over $640 million. Note that the offering was underwritten by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank Securities, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo Securities. The offering was oversubscribed, so the original plan to sell 2.1 million shares was changed to 2.7 million. The dilution of shares was about 2%, so one might have expected the stock to decline. Instead, the price has gone from $242 at the offering on August 15 to $264 today.
So, after the offering:
Tesla has hundreds of millions of dollars to continue their expansion
Tesla's debt to equity ratio has been reduced
Tesla's stock price has appreciated
Several of the world's largest investment banks have continued their commitment to helping Tesla succeed
I do get that: Tesla needed to raise capital and their debt to equity ratio was too high to borrow more. So, with
their stock price sky high, they decided to sell 2.7 million shares to the public. What better time to do it? They raised over $640 million. Note that the offering was underwritten by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank Securities, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo Securities. The offering was oversubscribed, so the original plan to sell 2.1 million shares was changed to 2.7 million. The dilution of shares was about 2%, so one might have expected the stock to decline. Instead, the price has gone from $242 at the offering on August 15 to $264 today.
So, after the offering:
Tesla has hundreds of millions of dollars to continue their expansion
Tesla's debt to equity ratio has been reduced
Tesla's stock price has appreciated
Several of the world's largest investment banks have continued their commitment to helping Tesla succeed
Trying to spin this as negative is just trolling.
You're right that Tesla can go for more equity given its currently high-priced stock, and probably will. But they need a lot of new capital, and some point the dam will break. Equity issuances are always the diceiest source of capital, and market sentiment can turn on a dime.
They will have to start to turn a profit at some point soon.
I have to laugh at the people that think Apple has no business developing a car but at the same time think they're leaking these rumors just to juice the stock price. If Apple has no business building a car how would these rumors juice the stock? Wouldn't the stock tank from worried investors?
But seriously do people think that Tim Cook, the executive team and the board are a bunch of idiots? A project like this does not get greenlighted on a whim.
So what do you consider a success? Top three or is the cutoff just before Apple?
Btw Apple TV was 1st in 2013 and 2nd in 2014. I guess it wasn't a success then either. But really market share is pointless.
Introducing Apple Bank...
I'd be willing to call it a success if apple were willing to call it a product rather than a "hobby." But do you remember the first Apple TV? It was a dog, it was not a success, which is why Apple re-engineered it. If market share is pointless...why do you bother pointing out that it was allegedly 1st in '13 and '14? My point is that Apple TV wasn't even worth buying until rev 3 of the 'hobby', this pattern has existed throughout Apple's history...so why rush out and buy a rev 1 car?
Comments
Apple will most likely not offer an autonomous car day one. That's nuts. It's a lot safer to offer an electric vehicle with hundreds of sensors and compile all this data on a server back at the lab to better understand driving, mapping, roads, elevation and accidents etc.
I'd say after 2-10 years they'll have enough data to develop a near flawless vehicle. I'd say 2 years later at the LEAST. Then there's all the old farts in congress who would have to allow new laws and the outdated road tech currently in use(traffic lights, construction/light up/road signs, lanes) that may or may need updating.
He also said that they not greasy, and anything that has wheels especially ones that turn is going to be greasy.
They're not financing the iPhone themselves, so what makes you think they'll finance cars?
Btw Apple TV was 1st in 2013 and 2nd in 2014. I guess it wasn't a success then either. But really market share is pointless.
Introducing Apple Bank...
Apple again introducing something that already exists.
https://www.applebank.com
What a ludicrous post. What "bad track record"?
Only in the troll world.
I do get that: Tesla needed to raise capital and their debt to equity ratio was too high to borrow more. So, with
their stock price sky high, they decided to sell 2.7 million shares to the public. What better time to do it? They raised over $640 million. Note that the offering was underwritten by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank Securities, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo Securities. The offering was oversubscribed, so the original plan to sell 2.1 million shares was changed to 2.7 million. The dilution of shares was about 2%, so one might have expected the stock to decline. Instead, the price has gone from $242 at the offering on August 15 to $264 today.
So, after the offering:
Tesla has hundreds of millions of dollars to continue their expansion
Tesla's debt to equity ratio has been reduced
Tesla's stock price has appreciated
Several of the world's largest investment banks have continued their commitment to helping Tesla succeed
Trying to spin this as negative is just trolling.
I don't come to this site for its humor. Do you?
I try my best, as do many others, but no one beats GTR when it comes to making the funny. I miss his jokes.
My thoughts echo John Gruber's regarding pricing of "Apple Car."
Apple Car Sport - $25,000
Apple Car - $40,000 to $60,000
Apple Car Edition - $250,000
If there can be jokes at a funeral there can be jokes on this site.
Bad joke.
That's because it wasn't meant to be one.
You're right that Tesla can go for more equity given its currently high-priced stock, and probably will. But they need a lot of new capital, and some point the dam will break. Equity issuances are always the diceiest source of capital, and market sentiment can turn on a dime.
They will have to start to turn a profit at some point soon.
Ok. Bad attempt at sardonic comment.
Strike 2. Of course nobody comes to this site for its humor, but that doesn't mean it has to be void of it.
But seriously do people think that Tim Cook, the executive team and the board are a bunch of idiots? A project like this does not get greenlighted on a whim.
So what do you consider a success? Top three or is the cutoff just before Apple?
Btw Apple TV was 1st in 2013 and 2nd in 2014. I guess it wasn't a success then either. But really market share is pointless.
Introducing Apple Bank...
I'd be willing to call it a success if apple were willing to call it a product rather than a "hobby." But do you remember the first Apple TV? It was a dog, it was not a success, which is why Apple re-engineered it. If market share is pointless...why do you bother pointing out that it was allegedly 1st in '13 and '14? My point is that Apple TV wasn't even worth buying until rev 3 of the 'hobby', this pattern has existed throughout Apple's history...so why rush out and buy a rev 1 car?
'Strike 2'? Groan....
Pretty much most of your posts here are not much more than snarky crap. Except when you're trolling...