Let's be blunt, Apple would have if they had bought Tesla inherited a car company that it would have to manage, legacy cars it would have to support, factories and a supply chain that they would have had to maintain, development projects that would have to be continued, in a company that at the time was losing money by the bucketful every day. All this years before the systems Apple was theoretically working on were ready to deploy. There was no point in talking at that point. The timing wasn't right.
That is assuming any of this actually happened. Musk has a history of blabbing BS on Twitter to get his face in the news.
Let's be blunt, Apple would have if they had bought Tesla inherited a car company that it would have to manage, legacy cars it would have to support, factories and a supply chain that they would have had to maintain, development projects that would have to be continued, in a company that at the time was losing money by the bucketful every day. All this years before the systems they are theoretically working on were ready to deploy. There was no point in talking at that point. The timing wasn't right.
That is assuming any of this actually happened. Musk has a history of blabbing BS on Twitter to get his face in the news.
Yeah, it's work, but why do you think Apple doesn't have the chops for it or the desire to add to their coffers the current revenue or valuation or other successful car markers. If Tesla can be 3/4 of a billion dollars why do think Apple can't?
Let's be clear, Apple does support their HW for a very long time—much longer than their competitors.Are automobiles different? Absolutely, but that's no more an argument than Apple shouldn't do it than when people said the iPod and iPhone were bad ideas for a personal computer company, or that the iPad was a bad idea because MS tried to make that work for decades without success.
At least acknowledge that Tesla showed us that a new automobile company could not only become successful, but also make EVs attractive to buyers. Nothing about that scenario is too difficult or costly for Apple to handle.
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.
Under Jobs, the iPhone and iPod came out pretty much once a year with coms very clear caveats. That's a great system and I suspect the M-series Macs will be doing the same since Apple isn't reliant upon Intel for performance boosts. Besides knowing that, it's surprising to me that you would 1) equate Intel's lack of efforts/success in releasing new chips as being Cook's ineffectiveness, and 2) somehow have equated Musk to doing things better when the number of new Tesla models and updates to models has not only been slow, but slow for the automobile industry. There's nothing wrong with Teslas's slowness (although their overpromising and under-delivering on release dates is an optics problem) but it's odd that you've equated Musk—someone I do very much admire—to being able to manage Apple's supply chain and development teams better than Cook. Nothing in my bones tells me that Musk or Jobs can do what Cook can do. Cook is the kind of CEO Apple needs today. Within Apple, one of Jobs best decisions was to make Cook CEO.
But at least talk, Tim Cook, see what they were working on!!!
That is an excellent reason NOT to talk.
Apple has been sued before for "taking a meeting" then releasing their own "similar" product.
You only take the meeting if there is a serious chance that the sale will happen imminently, which generally means the selling price is a fraction of what it would cost to develop internally, or it leapfrog's the competition. At the time indicated, Tesla would not have given either of those things.
Apple iPad was not the first to market, Apple Smartphone was not the first to market. Apple's success is generally in design, technology refinement/simplification, software/hardware integration and scale.
To make money in cars you need incredible scale. I think Apple are far more likely to buy GM or Ford or an asian marque than Tesla. That they didn't buy Volvo a few years ago when it was up for sale surprised me. Either they will (now they have Chinese manufacturing), or they saw it as too small and have larger ambitions. But if they can "outsource" production, then they don't need to buy production facilities. I don't know automotive well enough to know if that is really feasible.
Not to mention Elon was probably hoping to find out more about Apple's plans. Remember the skunk from Google that wheedled his way onto Apple's Board? I agree it's wise to keep far away from Tesla if Apple has a project of its own.
I am not sure Apple would buy any existing company. I suspect if Apple is planning to build a vehicle it will be homegrown. I still have a feeling Apple will be looking at some sort of new use model. Maybe vehicles you call when needed but don't own as such so no maintenance or depreciation. The highly intelligent people movers would be available in major urban areas and programmable like a Home Kit appliance. Pick me up on weekdays at 8-15, pick me up in half an hour to take me shopping/to the beach and so on... the vehicles will be only for Apple ecosystem users and biometrically secure and paid via Apple Pay. The vehicles would be owned by Apple or a new division of Apple. Claris Cars? lol
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.)
By that measure, Steve Jobs did nothing for Apple since he wasn't the engine building Macs, iPods, iPhones, or iPads, and yet Apple is successful because of Steve Jobs vision, not the significant engineering chops of Woz that Jobs saw as a way to make his vision for the Apple Computer happen.
I agree. Musk is Tesla as he is SpaceX, both visionary beyond the imagination of most humans. That said I would not want him near Apple.
Musk is one of the most over-rated businessmen in any industry and Tesla shares are so obscenely overpriced that their inevitable fall from grace is only a matter of time.
Let's be blunt, Apple would have if they had bought Tesla inherited a car company that it would have to manage, legacy cars it would have to support, factories and a supply chain that they would have had to maintain, development projects that would have to be continued, in a company that at the time was losing money by the bucketful every day. All this years before the systems they are theoretically working on were ready to deploy. There was no point in talking at that point. The timing wasn't right.
That is assuming any of this actually happened. Musk has a history of blabbing BS on Twitter to get his face in the news.
Yeah, it's work, but why do you think Apple doesn't have the chops for it or the desire to add to their coffers the current revenue or valuation or other successful car markers. If Tesla can be 3/4 of a billion dollars why do think Apple can't?
Let's be clear, Apple does support their HW for a very long time—much longer than their competitors.Are automobiles different? Absolutely, but that's no more an argument than Apple shouldn't do it than when people said the iPod and iPhone were bad ideas for a personal computer company, or that the iPad was a bad idea because MS tried to make that work for decades without success.
At least acknowledge that Tesla showed us that a new automobile company could not only become successful, but also make EVs attractive to buyers. Nothing about that scenario is too difficult or costly for Apple to handle.
You missed the critical points. At that time Tesla was not the high value company it is now. They were haemorrhaging money, it had never made a profit, and had gone through billions. Most industry analysts were betting that Musk had bitten off more than he could chew with the Model 3 and Tesla would soon fold. So on one hand Apple might have been betting that they could have just waited a year or two and gotten Tesla at fire sale prices. But more importantly, as I said the timing was wrong. Yes Apple was working on a car project but it was at least half a decade from coming to market. They would not have been able to do anything with the brand to make it their own. When Apple bought Beats they had audio in mind, very quickly they rolled over the line so Beats products were Apple products. The recent name change is just the last step. Tesla would have had over a decade of old rolling stock to support, would have to continue to produce under the Tesla brand and more importantly technology for close to another decade before Apple could have done anything with it. Apple doesn't do that. They acquire companies that they have a use for. At that time Apple's car project wasn't nearly far enough along to make use of Tesla. Lastly, yes Apple does support THEIR hardware for a long time. But how many times do they buy a software company and quickly fold the old app or service. They want to own the whole widget, liabilities and all. Also cars aren't like Beats headphones with a 90 day or at most a year warranty. Cars are supported for up to a decade. Apple would never put themselves in a position of taking on that kind of liability especially with a company that they could not make use of, make into an Apple line. The timing was just wrong.
There was no upside for Apple on this. If the same situation came today, Apple might look at it seriously. But when this is supposed to have happened, (assuming it actually did happen), Apple was not in a place to have taken advantage of acquiring Tesla and Tesla was nowhere near as attractive as it is now.
Interesting piece of trivia, but in the end I believe everyone involved made the right decisions for their respective companies. I'm sorry, but I don't get excited in the least when some folks start talking about Apple getting involved in electric vehicle production. For a company like Apple that has done so well and benefitted so greatly by focusing on problems that reside at the intersection of Technology & Liberal Arts, the grunge work of manufacturing automobiles doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun. If Apple gets to the point where it's all about chasing the money they will cease to be Apple.
Some think automobiles, particularly when self-driving becomes standard, will become more of an infotainment device that happens to do so while you are moving. All that free time in traffic means a lot of eyeballs to consume media. Controlling the car means controlling the interface and iOS can be central to that.
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
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.
What a stupid comment. That is exactly what Apple does with its regular software updates. In fact, Apple pioneered this OTA update model.
Musk is one of the most over-rated businessmen in any industry and Tesla shares are so obscenely overpriced that their inevitable fall from grace is only a matter of time.
Tim was right to not even entertain him.
I think there's been a cottage industry of people underestimating Musk for over a decade -- most notably short-sellers who've now lost their shirts, and pooh-poohing competitors who have tried but failed to emulate him yet made promises for many years now that they have been unable to keep, ending up time and again with pie on their collective faces -- that have paid the price.
Put me down as someone who thinks Musk knows what he is doing, and that he is one of those rare entrepreneur-owner-manager-visionaries who comes closest to a Steve Jobs today.
All that said, Apple is entirely right to show no interest in Tesla, leave alone buying the company and a mercurial CEO who tags along in the process.
Musk is one of the most over-rated businessmen in any industry and Tesla shares are so obscenely overpriced that their inevitable fall from grace is only a matter of time.
Tim was right to not even entertain him.
I think there's been a cottage industry of people underestimating Musk for over a decade -- most notably short-sellers who've now lost their shirts, and pooh-poohing competitors who have tried but failed to emulate him yet made promises for many years now that they have been unable to keep, ending up time and again with pie on their collective faces -- that have paid the price.
Put me down as someone who thinks Musk knows what he is doing, and that he is one of those rare entrepreneur-owner-manager-visionaries who comes closest to a Steve Jobs today.
All that said, Apple is entirely right to show no interest in Tesla, leave alone buying the company and a mercurial CEO who tags along in the process.
Very true. He said he'd build rockets. They all said he was crazy. But he did it, and the falcon 9 is one of the best boosters out there. He said he's start landing his rockets and reusing the first stage. They all said that was crazy. Nobody could do that and make it work. But he did it and the Falcon 9 is one of the least expensive rides to orbit because of it. He said he's start his won car company. they all said he was crazy, the field was full and nobody wanted electric cars. But he did and now after a long time of not making money it's turning a profit. Over and over he says he's going to do something insane. Everyone thinks he's nuts, but then he does it and makes it work. There's dozens of examples of this over his career. Ne may be a crazy SOB, but he's a crazy SOB that somehow does what he says. Not always on time, but he does it. I agree with the earlier post that Tesla shares are badly overpriced. But what do I know.
Interesting piece of trivia, but in the end I believe everyone involved made the right decisions for their respective companies. I'm sorry, but I don't get excited in the least when some folks start talking about Apple getting involved in electric vehicle production. For a company like Apple that has done so well and benefitted so greatly by focusing on problems that reside at the intersection of Technology & Liberal Arts, the grunge work of manufacturing automobiles doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun. If Apple gets to the point where it's all about chasing the money they will cease to be Apple.
Some think automobiles, particularly when self-driving becomes standard, will become more of an infotainment device that happens to do so while you are moving. All that free time in traffic means a lot of eyeballs to consume media. Controlling the car means controlling the interface and iOS can be central to that.
I understand what you're saying from the perspective that Apple somehow becomes a "technology stack provider" for a new generation of truly smart cars that would be built by others who are fully cognizant of the other physical bits and drudgery that goes into automobile manufacturing. Apple could be the "Win" part of a Wintel-like partnership around personal transportation products, in essence a common operating system and infotainment system for next generation cars. Something to think about.
Musk is one of the most over-rated businessmen in any industry and Tesla shares are so obscenely overpriced that their inevitable fall from grace is only a matter of time.
Tim was right to not even entertain him.
I think there's been a cottage industry of people underestimating Musk for over a decade -- most notably short-sellers who've now lost their shirts, and pooh-poohing competitors who have tried but failed to emulate him yet made promises for many years now that they have been unable to keep, ending up time and again with pie on their collective faces -- that have paid the price.
Put me down as someone who thinks Musk knows what he is doing, and that he is one of those rare entrepreneur-owner-manager-visionaries who comes closest to a Steve Jobs today.
All that said, Apple is entirely right to show no interest in Tesla, leave alone buying the company and a mercurial CEO who tags along in the process.
Very true. He said he'd build rockets. They all said he was crazy. But he did it, and the falcon 9 is one of the best boosters out there. He said he's start landing his rockets and reusing the first stage. They all said that was crazy. Nobody could do that and make it work. But he did it and the Falcon 9 is one of the least expensive rides to orbit because of it. He said he's start his won car company. they all said he was crazy, the field was full and nobody wanted electric cars. But he did and now after a long time of not making money it's turning a profit. Over and over he says he's going to do something insane. Everyone thinks he's nuts, but then he does it and makes it work. There's dozens of examples of this over his career. Ne may be a crazy SOB, but he's a crazy SOB that somehow does what he says. Not always on time, but he does it. I agree with the earlier post that Tesla shares are badly overpriced. But what do I know.
It's pretty funny all the people rushing to judge cook or musk in some way. I know this sounds crazy, but it is possible for neither of them to be the 'bad guy.' Both men, and both companies, are pretty amazing in their own ways.
I was thinking cook just didn't want to give anything away, but it makes a ton of sense that he was avoiding legal issues. Thanks to the previous poster who mentioned that.
Half of Tesla’s value at any given time is related to Musk.
Like you know it's not 7% or 93%…
They said the same thing about Apple and Steve Jobs. In fact, I think it was more dire, with statements claiming Apple couldn't possibly survive with Jobs as CEO.
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.
LOL what does that even mean? Are you implying Cook doesn't know everything about what Apple does, or doesn't see past their current product line? Because both assertions are clearly wrong.
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.
Oh, never mind — it's you who has the narrow vision of what Apple does. Upgraded PCs! What an imagination! LOLOLOL
Interesting piece of trivia, but in the end I believe everyone involved made the right decisions for their respective companies. I'm sorry, but I don't get excited in the least when some folks start talking about Apple getting involved in electric vehicle production. For a company like Apple that has done so well and benefitted so greatly by focusing on problems that reside at the intersection of Technology & Liberal Arts, the grunge work of manufacturing automobiles doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun. If Apple gets to the point where it's all about chasing the money they will cease to be Apple.
Some think automobiles, particularly when self-driving becomes standard, will become more of an infotainment device that happens to do so while you are moving. All that free time in traffic means a lot of eyeballs to consume media. Controlling the car means controlling the interface and iOS can be central to that.
I understand what you're saying from the perspective that Apple somehow becomes a "technology stack provider" for a new generation of truly smart cars that would be built by others who are fully cognizant of the other physical bits and drudgery that goes into automobile manufacturing. Apple could be the "Win" part of a Wintel-like partnership around personal transportation products, in essence a common operating system and infotainment system for next generation cars. Something to think about.
Built by others only in the sense of Apple's own manufacturing partners. Designed in California at Apple HQ from the ground up. Just look at the myriad patents of everything from doors to windows and everything in between. They're designing a car that they will have contract partners build, full stop. There will be no Apple Rokr Car, that's simply not how Apple does anything anymore.
Comments
That is assuming any of this actually happened. Musk has a history of blabbing BS on Twitter to get his face in the news.
Let's be clear, Apple does support their HW for a very long time—much longer than their competitors.Are automobiles different? Absolutely, but that's no more an argument than Apple shouldn't do it than when people said the iPod and iPhone were bad ideas for a personal computer company, or that the iPad was a bad idea because MS tried to make that work for decades without success.
At least acknowledge that Tesla showed us that a new automobile company could not only become successful, but also make EVs attractive to buyers. Nothing about that scenario is too difficult or costly for Apple to handle.
I am not sure Apple would buy any existing company. I suspect if Apple is planning to build a vehicle it will be homegrown. I still have a feeling Apple will be looking at some sort of new use model. Maybe vehicles you call when needed but don't own as such so no maintenance or depreciation. The highly intelligent people movers would be available in major urban areas and programmable like a Home Kit appliance. Pick me up on weekdays at 8-15, pick me up in half an hour to take me shopping/to the beach and so on... the vehicles will be only for Apple ecosystem users and biometrically secure and paid via Apple Pay. The vehicles would be owned by Apple or a new division of Apple. Claris Cars? lol
I agree. Musk is Tesla as he is SpaceX, both visionary beyond the imagination of most humans. That said I would not want him near Apple.
At that time Tesla was not the high value company it is now. They were haemorrhaging money, it had never made a profit, and had gone through billions. Most industry analysts were betting that Musk had bitten off more than he could chew with the Model 3 and Tesla would soon fold. So on one hand Apple might have been betting that they could have just waited a year or two and gotten Tesla at fire sale prices.
But more importantly, as I said the timing was wrong. Yes Apple was working on a car project but it was at least half a decade from coming to market. They would not have been able to do anything with the brand to make it their own. When Apple bought Beats they had audio in mind, very quickly they rolled over the line so Beats products were Apple products. The recent name change is just the last step. Tesla would have had over a decade of old rolling stock to support, would have to continue to produce under the Tesla brand and more importantly technology for close to another decade before Apple could have done anything with it. Apple doesn't do that. They acquire companies that they have a use for. At that time Apple's car project wasn't nearly far enough along to make use of Tesla.
Lastly, yes Apple does support THEIR hardware for a long time. But how many times do they buy a software company and quickly fold the old app or service. They want to own the whole widget, liabilities and all. Also cars aren't like Beats headphones with a 90 day or at most a year warranty. Cars are supported for up to a decade. Apple would never put themselves in a position of taking on that kind of liability especially with a company that they could not make use of, make into an Apple line. The timing was just wrong.
There was no upside for Apple on this. If the same situation came today, Apple might look at it seriously. But when this is supposed to have happened, (assuming it actually did happen), Apple was not in a place to have taken advantage of acquiring Tesla and Tesla was nowhere near as attractive as it is now.
What a stupid comment. That is exactly what Apple does with its regular software updates. In fact, Apple pioneered this OTA update model.
Put me down as someone who thinks Musk knows what he is doing, and that he is one of those rare entrepreneur-owner-manager-visionaries who comes closest to a Steve Jobs today.
All that said, Apple is entirely right to show no interest in Tesla, leave alone buying the company and a mercurial CEO who tags along in the process.
He said he'd build rockets. They all said he was crazy. But he did it, and the falcon 9 is one of the best boosters out there.
He said he's start landing his rockets and reusing the first stage. They all said that was crazy. Nobody could do that and make it work. But he did it and the Falcon 9 is one of the least expensive rides to orbit because of it.
He said he's start his won car company. they all said he was crazy, the field was full and nobody wanted electric cars. But he did and now after a long time of not making money it's turning a profit.
Over and over he says he's going to do something insane. Everyone thinks he's nuts, but then he does it and makes it work. There's dozens of examples of this over his career.
Ne may be a crazy SOB, but he's a crazy SOB that somehow does what he says. Not always on time, but he does it.
I agree with the earlier post that Tesla shares are badly overpriced. But what do I know.
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls
Oh, never mind — it's you who has the narrow vision of what Apple does. Upgraded PCs! What an imagination! LOLOLOL