The truth hurts and Apple definitely needs to hear it.
The bottom line at Tesla is that if you are willing to jump ship over money, then get the hell out because you weren't committed enough to work here in the first place. That philosophy ensures that you attract only those who are loyal, committed to your mission, and really want to work there. Lately it seems like Apple just throws money at problems and that a pile of cash will spur innovation. Good luck with that.
So he gets one vote. Sometimes the Chairman only votes in order to break ties. Plus he only holds 75 shares.
Are you really going to be that obtuse?
Yes, on paper, that is how things work. This is reality, in an economy ruled by emotion & a corporate age where cults of personality hold far more power than ever provided to them on paper.
Hence the only reason this is rumor-mill news. One cult of personality is decrying another cult of personality.
Yes, on paper, that is how things work. This is reality, in an economy ruled by emotion & a corporate age where cults of personality hold far more power than ever provided to them on paper.
Hence the only reason this is rumor-mill news. One cult of personality is decrying another cult of personality.
Musk has been fired from the position of CEO before. He got kicked out of PayPal. If Apple were to make an offer, most of the other directors hold lots of stock (except 1). If they want to take the offer, Musk has no leverage to prevent them from holding a shareholder vote.
The truth hurts and Apple definitely needs to hear it.
The bottom line at Tesla is that if you are willing to jump ship over money, then get the hell out because you weren't committed enough to work here in the first place. That philosophy ensures that you attract only those who are loyal, committed to your mission, and really want to work there. Lately it seems like Apple just throws money at problems and that a pile of cash will spur innovation. Good luck with that.
Right because people aren't motivated by money at the end of the day. Bryan Chaffin, who writes for the Mac Observer and has connections in the Bay Area, says Musk is flat out lying. That people are coming and leaving Tesla from and to a number of companies, including Apple. And if were supposed to believe that Tesla employees don't care about money then no matter what Apple or anyone else offered them they wouldn't leave would they? Yet they are.
The truth hurts and Apple definitely needs to hear it.
The bottom line at Tesla is that if you are willing to jump ship over money, then get the hell out because you weren't committed enough to work here in the first place. That philosophy ensures that you attract only those who are loyal, committed to your mission, and really want to work there. Lately it seems like Apple just throws money at problems and that a pile of cash will spur innovation. Good luck with that.
apple doesn't need your luck, they're still kicking ass and eating up all the profit in multiple industries.
and when apple offers you a quarter-million signing bonus, you'll jump ship, too.
Apple should seek a place in the telematics market, but building a car is a bag of hurt. 1- There is excessive production capacity in the world car market. 2- The go-go growth in China is mostly over. 3- Millennials in the US are showing a definite bias toward living in the center city and not wanting to waste massive amounts of money on cars & trucks. 4- Unless Apple has some uber secret technology, they will find most of the technology they will be using is licensed from someone else- their competitors or their suppliers. 5- Tesla has been through the tough slog of starting up a new car company and is still not to the promised land yet.
As a shareholder in both Tesla and Apple, I have no favorite, but think Musk is right on this.
Frankly, it's great that your 15 year old car exhibits the same MPG as the day you bought it is great. But that's more the exception than the rule in the real world, so it's not that relevant either. And besides if you care about the environment, you need to replace that car now and stop spewing so much toxins into the air. :-)
...Look how long it took the Koreans to get up to speed.
Sorry, you edited your post so let me just respond to a couple of your edits if you don't mind. Then I will give it a rest.
I should have been more clear, I bought the car used, it just happens to be over 15 years old. I think that I am the third, or maybe the fourth owner. But it still gets the advertised mileage the day it was purchased.
I think that is not the exception but more the rule. At least that has been the case for the dozen or so vehicles I have owned in the last 20 some years. It seems to be the case for anyone who does a minimum amount of maintenance on their vehicle. Sometimes just keeping your tires inflated and replacing the air filter is enough.
And if you really care about the environment, in general it is far better for the environment to do the basic maintenance and drive your car for as long as possible instead of buying a new one. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new car is significant enough to offset any gain versus continuing to drive a vehicle that still gets decent enough mileage that is 15 years old. Unless someone is going to continue driving your old car there is then the added environmental impact of disposal. Hopefully most of it can get recycled but even recycling has its environmental costs.
As an aside, not having a car payment for a brand new vehicle is really nice.
And for your other point about the Korean car manufacturers. They got pretty good relatively quickly compared to just about anyone else in the world. I remember in the early 1990's those cars were not that great. Then by the mid 90's they started getting to be sort of OK. By 2000 they were honestly great cars for the price. I test drove a few and was shocked at how far they had come in 10 short years. And they backed it up with their 100,000 mile warranty which at the time was unheard of.
I apologize for being weird but I would like to wrap it up by saying thanks for the discussion. It's been a great back and forth with you and I have enjoyed it.
Sorry, you edited your post so let me just respond to a couple of your edits if you don't mind. Then I will give it a rest.
I should have been more clear, I bought the car used, it just happens to be over 15 years old. I think that I am the third, or maybe the fourth owner. But it still gets the advertised mileage the day it was purchased.
I think that is not the exception but more the rule. At least that has been the case for the dozen or so vehicles I have owned in the last 20 some years. It seems to be the case for anyone who does a minimum amount of maintenance on their vehicle. Sometimes just keeping your tires inflated and replacing the air filter is enough.
And if you really care about the environment, in general it is far better for the environment to do the basic maintenance and drive your car for as long as possible instead of buying a new one. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new car is significant enough to offset any gain versus continuing to drive a vehicle that still gets decent enough mileage that is 15 years old. Unless someone is going to continue driving your old car there is then the added environmental impact of disposal. Hopefully most of it can get recycled but even recycling has its environmental costs.
As an aside, not having a car payment for a brand new vehicle is really nice.
And for your other point about the Korean car manufacturers. They got pretty good relatively quickly compared to just about anyone else in the world. I remember in the early 1990's those cars were not that great. Then by the mid 90's they started getting to be sort of OK. By 2000 they were honestly great cars for the price. I test drove a few and was shocked at how far they had come in 10 short years. And they backed it up with their 100,000 mile warranty which at the time was unheard of.
I apologize for being weird but I would like to wrap it up by saying thanks for the discussion. It's been a great back and forth with you and I have enjoyed it.
If I sounded aggressive or combative, sorry, internet doesn't do vocal and verbal inflection. It was all mock outrage. I hear you about keeping and maintaining cars as long as possible. I drive a 13 year old car that performs pretty much as it did the dayI bought it new. Just sold a 17 year old CR-V whose MPG is the same as the day I bought it too. People don't realize that a thousand dollar repair bill every 6-10 years is still cheaper than buying a new car.
Hyundai didn't start building cars in the early 90's. The Hyundai Pony was introduced in 1975 and they didn't dare sell it in the US because they couldn't measure up to the regulatory standards. They sold it locally first, then to some 3rd world countries, then Europe before they entered the US market in 1986 with the Pony renamed as the Excel. And even then, boy it was almost Yugo-like. So they didn't take 10 years to get things right, more like 25 years, one generation. Which is, incidentally, about the same length of time that it took Honda and Toyota to overhaul the Detroit Big 3. [I have a pet theory that it takes at least a generation to win or lose significcant market share in the auto industry. Toyota and Honda couldn't make much headway until the cohort of buyers to whom "Made in Japan" meant shoddy products were replaced by the succeeding generation who have no memories of crappy Japanese-made stuff. And the US automakers couldn't recover from the debacle of the 70s and 80s until the generation for whom "Made in Detroit" was synonymous with Shake, Rattle and Roll started to give way to the next generation.
Apple has innovated and pushed the envelope on any number of new products and processes. Way too numerous to list. I don't need to tell someone like you about all of Apple's innovations. It's not about creating new product categories per se.
In any event, my question to the OP was not about Apple, it was about Tesla. Neither you nor the OP has named a major automobile innovation from Tesla. It was a serious question, worthy of a serious answer. Not a diversionary one.
Yes it was about Tesla but as the other poster pointed out your argument was implying because they didn't do anything first means they were not innovative. Well the same argument could be applied to apple in that they didn't invent the smartphone or the tablet or the mp3 player we all know.
Anyone who has seriously followed Tesla would know these innovations. Probably the biggest one is the OTA software updates that can actually change the driving experience or improve engine efficiency. For example there was a recall notice on Tesla vehicles last year January in which one car caught fire because of an over heated charger plug. In order to fix the issue Tesla issued an over the air software update so that it will detect charging problem and merely reduce the charging rate to avoid over heating. Not a single Tesla owner had to bring in their car to get it fixed, they literally could fix the car anywhere that had internet, the middle of a mall parking lot or in their garage, etc. No other car company to date has been able to do this.
Then you factor in that Tesla issues software updates that add functionality to the vehicle and in some cases these updates are available to models that are several years old meaning you can have a car that is two-three years old and still have all the capabilities of the car that is being rolled off the assembly line today. A perfect example of this is that Tesla is getting ready to release an update that will allow their vehicles to go on auto pilot on highways. You don't have to buy a new Tesla you just have to install the software on your current Tesla in order to use it.
Anyone who has seriously followed Tesla would know these innovations. Probably the biggest one is the OTA software updates that can actually change the driving experience or improve engine efficiency. For example there was a recall notice on Tesla vehicles last year January in which one car caught fire because of an over heated charger plug. In order to fix the issue Tesla issued an over the air software update so that it will detect charging problem and merely reduce the charging rate to avoid over heating. Not a single Tesla owner had to bring in their car to get it fixed, they literally could fix the car anywhere that had internet, the middle of a mall parking lot or in their garage, etc. No other car company to date has been able to do this.
That's a nice convenience, but you have to take into consideration the security aspect. How does Tesla assure that only they can gain access to their vehicle's systems, which you say could be remotely accessed in the middle of a parking lot.
Hyundai didn't start building cars in the early 90's. The Hyundai Pony was introduced in 1975 and they didn't dare sell it in the US because they couldn't measure up to the regulatory standards. They sold it locally first, then to some 3rd world countries, then Europe before they entered the US market in 1986 with the Pony renamed as the Excel. And even then, boy it was almost Yugo-like. So they didn't take 10 years to get things right, more like 25 years, one generation. Which is, incidentally, about the same length of time that it took Honda and Toyota to overhaul the Detroit Big 3. [I have a pet theory that it takes at least a generation to win or lose significcant market share in the auto industry. Toyota and Honda couldn't make much headway until the cohort of buyers to whom "Made in Japan" meant shoddy products were replaced by the succeeding generation who have no memories of crappy Japanese-made stuff. And the US automakers couldn't recover from the debacle of the 70s and 80s until the generation for whom "Made in Detroit" was synonymous with Shake, Rattle and Roll started to give way to the next generation.
That is a great theory.
It really does take about a generation doesn't it? I am going to steal your generation theory and make it my own.
Fast forward to today and American cars are finally getting back some of the mind share from the old days of shake, rattle and roll. It seems they finally learned how to make a somewhat decent car from those who ate their lunch a generation ago.
Off topic from cars, from around the mid 70's to 80's and into the 90's it felt like there was just an anti made-in-America sentiment across the board, not just with cars. Then in the 2000's things started to change and made-in-America took on a new meaning of pride. Maybe 9/11 had a bit to do with that, but I also like your generation theory.
Your too much focused on money. Read my comment again, never said that Musk wasn't interested in money.
I have a small request. Could you please figure out the difference between "your" and "you're" before you post? I know it sounds nitpicky, but you're (not your) sounding a tad foolish every time you post, and you're (not your) making Tesla/Musk look bad with your (not you're) poorly worded apologisms for the company/man.
How much profit does Amazon make? It doesn't appear they will be going out of business anytime soon.
Wake me up when there are no more government bailouts for car companies, airlines, financial institutions, entire countries, etc.
Um..what does a discussion of Apple versus Tesla have to do with Amazon and government bailouts!?
Unless, of course, you're implying that, since Amazon is not very profitable, Tesla need not be; and since GM got a bailout, it's ok that Tesla does too. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Hate to say it... but.... Computers are so 20th Century... what can you do after the Robot Apocalypse, and the machines take over? Not much opportunity for market growth...!!
Nope... because Mr Musk is some-one who aspires to land his rockets in his Vulcanic lair.... and as Transportation is going to be the next big thing, and Tesla, Amazon, and even Google to some degree have aspirations for Space Transportation, and with Elon Musk making aspiring statements about establishing a colony on Mars... what would really fire up the troops in the "SpaceShip Apple Campus"... would be for "Project Titan" to be establish a human colony on ....Titan! Apple is the one Mega Silicon Valley company that does not have Space Transportation plans take over the universe unlike Blue Origins, SpaceX, or Google [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/01/moon-express-rockets-closer-to-planned-lunar-landing.html] ... with all the cash that Apple have, a moon-base established by Apple would be just small change....!!! It is about time that Apple starts to think Galactic!!
Acceleration past a certain point is useless.
High acceleration means overbuilding the motor, wiring, suspension, drivetrain, frame of the car, cooling and probably the batteries = HIGH PRICE. To gain that little move oomp off the top, the car costs 20K more, well woop dee doo!!
The Tesla's are not the ultimate driving machine when you factor in all other parameters. So, what are getting for your money?
Teslas acceleration is at 0mph so what are you talking bout?
Also the $20k ludacris mode (I think actually it costs $10k) is an add on. If you want it you pay for it and you get it. Tesla is an awesome car without it as well.
How much profit does Amazon make? It doesn't appear they will be going out of business anytime soon.
Wake me up when there are no more government bailouts for car companies, airlines, financial institutions, entire countries, etc.
Um..what does a discussion of Apple versus Tesla have to do with Amazon and government bailouts!?
Unless, of course, you're implying that, since Amazon is not very profitable, Tesla need not be; and since GM got a bailout, it's ok that Tesla does too. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
More or less I think you kind of got the gist of what I was trying to say, but I will try to clarify. sog said:
"The facts are Musk has not proven he is able to run a car company that runs a profit.
Anyone can sell cars if they sell them at a $30k loss per car.
Wake me up when Musk turns a profit and proves his business model is legit."
I just wanted to point out that there are companies like Amazon who do not turn a profit, yet Amazon does pretty well in a few areas and doesn't appear to be going out of business any time soon from lack of profit. It doesn't seem like anyone is complaining about Jeff Bezos.
My point about the bailouts is that even the decades-old car companies proved they were not able to run a car company and needed bailouts.
Tesla (founded in 2003) and Amazon (founded in 1994) both sort of feel like they are still in 'start-up' mode. I think we need to give Tesla more time before bashing Musk and Tesla's business. They are trying to do some things that have never been done before.
Teslas acceleration is at 0mph so what are you talking bout?
Also the $20k ludacris mode (I think actually it costs $10k) is an add on. If you want it you pay for it and you get it. Tesla is an awesome car without it as well.
WTF are you talking 0mph (miles per hour...) (sic).
Acceleration from standing is even more useless than acceleration on the road (were normal cars are in the middle of their power band and accelerate just fine).
The 20K or more is done to overbuild the car. I'm taking about the whole being overbuilt.
To get it to acceerate from zero, the only thing it does better than a regular car, and even then, you can get a Nissan GTR for about the same price and beat it soundly in just about every metric but 100 meter acceleration...
WTF are you talking 0mph (miles per hour...) (sic).
Acceleration from standing is even more useless than acceleration on the road (were normal cars are in the middle of their power band and accelerate just fine).
The 20K or more is done to overbuild the car. I'm taking about the whole being overbuilt.
To get it to acceerate from zero, the only thing it does better than a regular car, and even then, you can get a Nissan GTR for about the same price and beat it soundly in just about every metric but 100 meter acceleration...
Tesla model s or x is not meant to compete or compare with a Nissan GTR. So this point you're making is plain stupid.
And you're dissing a car that consumer reports rated 103 out of 100. I rest my case.
Comments
The truth hurts and Apple definitely needs to hear it.
The bottom line at Tesla is that if you are willing to jump ship over money, then get the hell out because you weren't committed enough to work here in the first place. That philosophy ensures that you attract only those who are loyal, committed to your mission, and really want to work there. Lately it seems like Apple just throws money at problems and that a pile of cash will spur innovation. Good luck with that.
So he gets one vote. Sometimes the Chairman only votes in order to break ties. Plus he only holds 75 shares.
Are you really going to be that obtuse?
Yes, on paper, that is how things work. This is reality, in an economy ruled by emotion & a corporate age where cults of personality hold far more power than ever provided to them on paper.
Hence the only reason this is rumor-mill news. One cult of personality is decrying another cult of personality.
Are you really going to be that obtuse?
Yes, on paper, that is how things work. This is reality, in an economy ruled by emotion & a corporate age where cults of personality hold far more power than ever provided to them on paper.
Hence the only reason this is rumor-mill news. One cult of personality is decrying another cult of personality.
Musk has been fired from the position of CEO before. He got kicked out of PayPal. If Apple were to make an offer, most of the other directors hold lots of stock (except 1). If they want to take the offer, Musk has no leverage to prevent them from holding a shareholder vote.
Right because people aren't motivated by money at the end of the day. Bryan Chaffin, who writes for the Mac Observer and has connections in the Bay Area, says Musk is flat out lying. That people are coming and leaving Tesla from and to a number of companies, including Apple. And if were supposed to believe that Tesla employees don't care about money then no matter what Apple or anyone else offered them they wouldn't leave would they? Yet they are.
apple doesn't need your luck, they're still kicking ass and eating up all the profit in multiple industries.
and when apple offers you a quarter-million signing bonus, you'll jump ship, too.
1- There is excessive production capacity in the world car market.
2- The go-go growth in China is mostly over.
3- Millennials in the US are showing a definite bias toward living in the center city and not wanting to waste massive amounts of money on cars & trucks.
4- Unless Apple has some uber secret technology, they will find most of the technology they will be using is licensed from someone else- their competitors or their suppliers.
5- Tesla has been through the tough slog of starting up a new car company and is still not to the promised land yet.
As a shareholder in both Tesla and Apple, I have no favorite, but think Musk is right on this.
...Look how long it took the Koreans to get up to speed.
Sorry, you edited your post so let me just respond to a couple of your edits if you don't mind. Then I will give it a rest.
I should have been more clear, I bought the car used, it just happens to be over 15 years old. I think that I am the third, or maybe the fourth owner. But it still gets the advertised mileage the day it was purchased.
I think that is not the exception but more the rule. At least that has been the case for the dozen or so vehicles I have owned in the last 20 some years. It seems to be the case for anyone who does a minimum amount of maintenance on their vehicle. Sometimes just keeping your tires inflated and replacing the air filter is enough.
And if you really care about the environment, in general it is far better for the environment to do the basic maintenance and drive your car for as long as possible instead of buying a new one. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new car is significant enough to offset any gain versus continuing to drive a vehicle that still gets decent enough mileage that is 15 years old. Unless someone is going to continue driving your old car there is then the added environmental impact of disposal. Hopefully most of it can get recycled but even recycling has its environmental costs.
As an aside, not having a car payment for a brand new vehicle is really nice.
And for your other point about the Korean car manufacturers. They got pretty good relatively quickly compared to just about anyone else in the world. I remember in the early 1990's those cars were not that great. Then by the mid 90's they started getting to be sort of OK. By 2000 they were honestly great cars for the price. I test drove a few and was shocked at how far they had come in 10 short years. And they backed it up with their 100,000 mile warranty which at the time was unheard of.
I apologize for being weird but I would like to wrap it up by saying thanks for the discussion. It's been a great back and forth with you and I have enjoyed it.
Sorry, you edited your post so let me just respond to a couple of your edits if you don't mind. Then I will give it a rest.
I should have been more clear, I bought the car used, it just happens to be over 15 years old. I think that I am the third, or maybe the fourth owner. But it still gets the advertised mileage the day it was purchased.
I think that is not the exception but more the rule. At least that has been the case for the dozen or so vehicles I have owned in the last 20 some years. It seems to be the case for anyone who does a minimum amount of maintenance on their vehicle. Sometimes just keeping your tires inflated and replacing the air filter is enough.
And if you really care about the environment, in general it is far better for the environment to do the basic maintenance and drive your car for as long as possible instead of buying a new one. The environmental cost of manufacturing a new car is significant enough to offset any gain versus continuing to drive a vehicle that still gets decent enough mileage that is 15 years old. Unless someone is going to continue driving your old car there is then the added environmental impact of disposal. Hopefully most of it can get recycled but even recycling has its environmental costs.
As an aside, not having a car payment for a brand new vehicle is really nice.
And for your other point about the Korean car manufacturers. They got pretty good relatively quickly compared to just about anyone else in the world. I remember in the early 1990's those cars were not that great. Then by the mid 90's they started getting to be sort of OK. By 2000 they were honestly great cars for the price. I test drove a few and was shocked at how far they had come in 10 short years. And they backed it up with their 100,000 mile warranty which at the time was unheard of.
I apologize for being weird but I would like to wrap it up by saying thanks for the discussion. It's been a great back and forth with you and I have enjoyed it.
If I sounded aggressive or combative, sorry, internet doesn't do vocal and verbal inflection. It was all mock outrage. I hear you about keeping and maintaining cars as long as possible. I drive a 13 year old car that performs pretty much as it did the dayI bought it new. Just sold a 17 year old CR-V whose MPG is the same as the day I bought it too. People don't realize that a thousand dollar repair bill every 6-10 years is still cheaper than buying a new car.
Hyundai didn't start building cars in the early 90's. The Hyundai Pony was introduced in 1975 and they didn't dare sell it in the US because they couldn't measure up to the regulatory standards. They sold it locally first, then to some 3rd world countries, then Europe before they entered the US market in 1986 with the Pony renamed as the Excel. And even then, boy it was almost Yugo-like. So they didn't take 10 years to get things right, more like 25 years, one generation. Which is, incidentally, about the same length of time that it took Honda and Toyota to overhaul the Detroit Big 3. [I have a pet theory that it takes at least a generation to win or lose significcant market share in the auto industry. Toyota and Honda couldn't make much headway until the cohort of buyers to whom "Made in Japan" meant shoddy products were replaced by the succeeding generation who have no memories of crappy Japanese-made stuff. And the US automakers couldn't recover from the debacle of the 70s and 80s until the generation for whom "Made in Detroit" was synonymous with Shake, Rattle and Roll started to give way to the next generation.
Apple has innovated and pushed the envelope on any number of new products and processes. Way too numerous to list. I don't need to tell someone like you about all of Apple's innovations. It's not about creating new product categories per se.
In any event, my question to the OP was not about Apple, it was about Tesla. Neither you nor the OP has named a major automobile innovation from Tesla. It was a serious question, worthy of a serious answer. Not a diversionary one.
Yes it was about Tesla but as the other poster pointed out your argument was implying because they didn't do anything first means they were not innovative. Well the same argument could be applied to apple in that they didn't invent the smartphone or the tablet or the mp3 player we all know.
Anyone who has seriously followed Tesla would know these innovations. Probably the biggest one is the OTA software updates that can actually change the driving experience or improve engine efficiency. For example there was a recall notice on Tesla vehicles last year January in which one car caught fire because of an over heated charger plug. In order to fix the issue Tesla issued an over the air software update so that it will detect charging problem and merely reduce the charging rate to avoid over heating. Not a single Tesla owner had to bring in their car to get it fixed, they literally could fix the car anywhere that had internet, the middle of a mall parking lot or in their garage, etc. No other car company to date has been able to do this.
Then you factor in that Tesla issues software updates that add functionality to the vehicle and in some cases these updates are available to models that are several years old meaning you can have a car that is two-three years old and still have all the capabilities of the car that is being rolled off the assembly line today. A perfect example of this is that Tesla is getting ready to release an update that will allow their vehicles to go on auto pilot on highways. You don't have to buy a new Tesla you just have to install the software on your current Tesla in order to use it.
That's a nice convenience, but you have to take into consideration the security aspect. How does Tesla assure that only they can gain access to their vehicle's systems, which you say could be remotely accessed in the middle of a parking lot.
Hyundai didn't start building cars in the early 90's. The Hyundai Pony was introduced in 1975 and they didn't dare sell it in the US because they couldn't measure up to the regulatory standards. They sold it locally first, then to some 3rd world countries, then Europe before they entered the US market in 1986 with the Pony renamed as the Excel. And even then, boy it was almost Yugo-like. So they didn't take 10 years to get things right, more like 25 years, one generation. Which is, incidentally, about the same length of time that it took Honda and Toyota to overhaul the Detroit Big 3. [I have a pet theory that it takes at least a generation to win or lose significcant market share in the auto industry. Toyota and Honda couldn't make much headway until the cohort of buyers to whom "Made in Japan" meant shoddy products were replaced by the succeeding generation who have no memories of crappy Japanese-made stuff. And the US automakers couldn't recover from the debacle of the 70s and 80s until the generation for whom "Made in Detroit" was synonymous with Shake, Rattle and Roll started to give way to the next generation.
That is a great theory.
It really does take about a generation doesn't it? I am going to steal your generation theory and make it my own.
Fast forward to today and American cars are finally getting back some of the mind share from the old days of shake, rattle and roll. It seems they finally learned how to make a somewhat decent car from those who ate their lunch a generation ago.
Off topic from cars, from around the mid 70's to 80's and into the 90's it felt like there was just an anti made-in-America sentiment across the board, not just with cars. Then in the 2000's things started to change and made-in-America took on a new meaning of pride. Maybe 9/11 had a bit to do with that, but I also like your generation theory.
I have a small request. Could you please figure out the difference between "your" and "you're" before you post? I know it sounds nitpicky, but you're (not your) sounding a tad foolish every time you post, and you're (not your) making Tesla/Musk look bad with your (not you're) poorly worded apologisms for the company/man.
Um..what does a discussion of Apple versus Tesla have to do with Amazon and government bailouts!?
Unless, of course, you're implying that, since Amazon is not very profitable, Tesla need not be; and since GM got a bailout, it's ok that Tesla does too. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
What's an iWatch?
Computers are so 20th Century... what can you do after the Robot Apocalypse, and the machines take over? Not much opportunity for market growth...!!
Nope... because Mr Musk is some-one who aspires to land his rockets in his Vulcanic lair.... and as Transportation is going to be the next big thing, and Tesla, Amazon, and even Google to some degree have aspirations for Space Transportation, and with Elon Musk making aspiring statements about establishing a colony on Mars... what would really fire up the troops in the "SpaceShip Apple Campus"... would be for "Project Titan" to be establish a human colony on ....Titan! Apple is the one Mega Silicon Valley company that does not have Space Transportation plans take over the universe unlike Blue Origins, SpaceX, or Google [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/01/moon-express-rockets-closer-to-planned-lunar-landing.html] ... with all the cash that Apple have, a moon-base established by Apple would be just small change....!!! It is about time that Apple starts to think Galactic!!
Teslas acceleration is at 0mph so what are you talking bout?
Also the $20k ludacris mode (I think actually it costs $10k) is an add on. If you want it you pay for it and you get it. Tesla is an awesome car without it as well.
How much profit does Amazon make? It doesn't appear they will be going out of business anytime soon.
Wake me up when there are no more government bailouts for car companies, airlines, financial institutions, entire countries, etc.
Um..what does a discussion of Apple versus Tesla have to do with Amazon and government bailouts!?
Unless, of course, you're implying that, since Amazon is not very profitable, Tesla need not be; and since GM got a bailout, it's ok that Tesla does too. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
More or less I think you kind of got the gist of what I was trying to say, but I will try to clarify. sog said:
"The facts are Musk has not proven he is able to run a car company that runs a profit.
Anyone can sell cars if they sell them at a $30k loss per car.
Wake me up when Musk turns a profit and proves his business model is legit."
I just wanted to point out that there are companies like Amazon who do not turn a profit, yet Amazon does pretty well in a few areas and doesn't appear to be going out of business any time soon from lack of profit. It doesn't seem like anyone is complaining about Jeff Bezos.
My point about the bailouts is that even the decades-old car companies proved they were not able to run a car company and needed bailouts.
Tesla (founded in 2003) and Amazon (founded in 1994) both sort of feel like they are still in 'start-up' mode. I think we need to give Tesla more time before bashing Musk and Tesla's business. They are trying to do some things that have never been done before.
I hope that helps make more sense.
Teslas acceleration is at 0mph so what are you talking bout?
Also the $20k ludacris mode (I think actually it costs $10k) is an add on. If you want it you pay for it and you get it. Tesla is an awesome car without it as well.
WTF are you talking 0mph (miles per hour...) (sic).
Acceleration from standing is even more useless than acceleration on the road (were normal cars are in the middle of their power band and accelerate just fine).
The 20K or more is done to overbuild the car. I'm taking about the whole being overbuilt.
To get it to acceerate from zero, the only thing it does better than a regular car, and even then, you can get a Nissan GTR for about the same price and beat it soundly in just about every metric but 100 meter acceleration...
Tesla model s or x is not meant to compete or compare with a Nissan GTR. So this point you're making is plain stupid.
And you're dissing a car that consumer reports rated 103 out of 100. I rest my case.