[Brave Ulysses]

Apple has tons of cash and needs to find additional avenues for revenue growth and arguably increased innovation.

Tesla has lots of innovation, vision and growth but needs cash and operational and manufacturer expertise.


How has this not happened? Or will it happen? They are located miles apart. And despite some public competitive comments seem to be a logical match for the future. Elon’s vision and boldness matched with Tim’s operational acumen and apples branding and marketing excellence

[Dr. Bobsky]

Tesla isn't the only fish in the electric/self-driving car sea, and its operational failures will drive it out of business sooner than later. Vision or no, Musk had only a short window to become so dominant Tesla's status would be unquestioned, and that window has closed.

These speculations have been all over the internet last year, maybe it's not yet the time for these two companies to merge, but it is true that Apple can actually buy Tesla.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky Tesla isn't the only fish in the electric/self-driving car sea, and its operational failures will drive it out of business sooner than later. Vision or no, Musk had only a short window to become so dominant Tesla's status would be unquestioned, and that window has closed.

Lol. You really are out to lunch. Tesla is the only one that matters.

Tesla’s growth is unprecedented. They are being judged/rated against a standard that no car company has ever faced.

Tesla’s dominance in the electric car market is very apparent and not going anywhere. Every electric bmw and Audi has been announced as a “Tesla killer” for 5+ years now. And they have done nothing.

I also find it ironic for an Apple advocate to make a judgment of long term success based upon market share.

[Dr. Bobsky]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Lol. You really are out to lunch. Tesla is the only one that matters. Tesla’s growth is unprecedented. They are being judged/rated against a standard that no car company has ever faced. Tesla’s dominance in the electric car market is very apparent and not going anywhere. Every electric bmw and Audi has been announced as a “Tesla killer” for 5+ years now. And they have done nothing. I also find it ironic for an Apple advocate to make a judgment of long term success based upon market share.

The entire sectors growth is unprecedented. Tesla has cash flow issues caused by incompetence. These will catch up to it. Tesla isn’t as dominating as you seem to believe, VW sells more electric vehicles in China than Tesla — and both are far below the sales of Chinese manufactures. Why does this matter? Because rates of electric car adoption in China outpace anywhere else on earth, the consumers there are defining who will ultimate win.

To be absolutely crystal clear: my argument wasn’t at all about market share. It was about the limited window Tesla had to define the standard of electric cars... they didn’t capitalize, and so their competition from new and old car companies has caught up and in some markets is outpacing their sales... the lack of proper management will only exacerbate this over time...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Tesla has lots of innovation, vision and growth but needs cash and operational and manufacturer expertise.

Kind of. In the early years, their strategy to start with a roadster, continue with a luxury sedan and keep on moving further downmarket seemed smart and to work out well.

I'd also say they've successfully rattled some feathers at the big ol' corps like Daimler.

But… after that? They seem to have trouble moving mass-market, and Musk increasingly comes off not so much as a brilliant visionary but as a bumbling idiot who keeps deservedly running into trouble with the SEC (imagine half as much oversight for politicians…).

Which maybe goes to your point — Tesla could use some more professional management, and Apple could use some of Tesla's innovation.

I just don't think there's much left for Tesla to offer, and I don't think they're a great fit. That could just be conservative me, though — I'd much rather Apple stay focus on IT.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Lol. You really are out to lunch. Tesla is the only one that matters.

That was true a few years ago, but the Model 3 hasn't lived up to its promise.

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses I also find it ironic for an Apple advocate to make a judgment of long term success based upon market share.

It's not that Tesla lacks market share. It's that they seem to have run out of ideas.

[kscherer]

I don't know. I guess I have a few things to say.

Pros:

- Apple gains a manufacturing partner with at least some experience;
- Tesla is a respected brand;
- Apple gains access to the Gigafactory, which has the [presumed] capability to manufacture all the batteries they could ever want;
- The Gigafactory may also be able to supply batteries for Apple's other product line, so there is an advantage there;
- Apple would immediately have access to hundreds of thousands of new, highly devoted customers who are willing to spend money on quality products

Cons:

- Elon Musk;
- Quality issues need to be resolved;
- Linux/Ubuntu-based OS would need extensive rebuild;
- Manufacturing capacity needs to be resolved;
- Serious culture clashes (especially regarding Musk and senior managers);
- Branding—Do they change the name to Apple Car? I doubt it (see Beats);
- The Gigafactory is at least partly owned by Panasonic (the actual battery supplier), so there is complication in that;
- Tesla would cost Apple roughly $50billion, with no profitable future in sight; Apple can develop its own car for significantly less than this

—

Honestly, I don't think it makes sense. When Apple bought Beats for $3billion, at least Beats was a profitable company under solid, mature leadership. Tesla is struggling to find money and Musk is a loose canon, and that combination would cost Apple $50billion+, depending on the market at time of purchase. Also, it would likely bring Apple into direct competition with their CarPlay partners, and I can see every manufacturer dumping them practically overnight, although I suppose an argument could be made that other car makers would not want to anger their iPhone-owning customers.

Also, I wonder how the SEC would feel about such an acquisition, since Apple has so many tentacles into other auto brand's stereos? Not a lawyer, so not sure about that, but a hair does stand up on the back of my neck.

Could Apple solve the manufacturing and supply issues? Perhaps, but I doubt if they could do it inside of five years. Too many things already in place that would need to be changed/eliminated.

I think it's a bad idea.

Edit: And I think Apple/Elon Musk would bang heads about way too many things, leading to Musk's departure. Good or bad? Probably both. Nutball that he is, he's created or been part of the creation of several very popular and [mostly] successful companies. Like him or not, without crazy people like that companies like SpaceX and Tesla do not come to life. Too much risk under too much scrutiny, especially when lives are at stake.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer - Apple gains access to the Gigafactory, which has the [presumed] capability to manufacture all the batteries they could ever want; - The Gigafactory may also be able to supply batteries for Apple's other product line, so there is an advantage there;

So this is interesting, but as you point out:

Originally Posted by kscherer - The Gigafactory is at least partly owned by Panasonic (the actual battery supplier), so there is complication in that;

Tesla does have know-how in the area (and they bought SolarCity), though. Apple might be interested in that.

[Brave Ulysses]

nice to see some life and meaningful discussion come back to this place :-)

Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky The entire sectors growth is unprecedented. .

Really? Look, electric car sales are growing. But Tesla is leading the pack by orders of magnitude. And without Tesla, "the pack" would have never had a chance or likely existed. You really can't deny that.

Tesla has cash flow issues caused by incompetence. These will catch up to it.

Yes and no. Tesla's operations and business management definitely has demonstrated incompetence... hence my belief that Apple can have a very positive impact on Tesla. But, I also believe that Tesla is handicapped by being a publicly traded company and bending over backwards each quarter to try and appease Wall Street. Tesla is a growth company and should be reinvesting every dollar they make into R&D and build out of services and infrastructure. The capital investments they have made to date may not show up well on the balance sheet right now, but they set them apart from everyone else.

Tesla isn’t as dominating as you seem to believe, VW sells more electric vehicles in China than Tesla — and both are far below the sales of Chinese manufactures. Why does this matter? Because rates of electric car adoption in China outpace anywhere else on earth, the consumers there are defining who will ultimate win.

huh? Tesla is by far the dominant force in electric vehicles globally. The Model 3 has become the top selling car in its class in nearly every country It has been released in so far... car... not just electric car. As for China.... the Model 3 has only been available in China for less than a quarter. They are all imported from Fremont, CA. The Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai will be complete this summer. The Model 3 will quickly become the top selling electric vehicle in China within the next 2 quarters, and the growth curve will only continue to widen the gap.

To be absolutely crystal clear: my argument wasn’t at all about market share. It was about the limited window Tesla had to define the standard of electric cars... they didn’t capitalize, and so their competition from new and old car companies has caught up and in some markets is outpacing their sales... the lack of proper management will only exacerbate this over time.

Huh? There is no market that is growing faster than Tesla that Tesla has been selling the Model 3 in for greater than 3 months. And in countries where the Model 3 is being sold, the gap is increasingly huge.

At a close to home level (the US)... The gap between Tesla and the competition is immense. There is no one who can produce as many battery packs, of comparable capacity, produce as efficient cars, with comparable features and safety, for a comparable price. This doesn't even take into account the Supercharger network, which to be honest, is what makes mass adoption of electric vehicles in the US remotely viable. There is nothing remotely comparable to the Supercharger network today, nor will there be next year, or the following year. this really is something that even Tesla has not done a good enough job of appreciating and marketing.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by chucker Kind of. In the early years, their strategy to start with a roadster, continue with a luxury sedan and keep on moving further downmarket seemed smart and to work out well. I'd also say they've successfully rattled some feathers at the big ol' corps like Daimler. But… after that? They seem to have trouble moving mass-market, and Musk increasingly comes off not so much as a brilliant visionary but as a bumbling idiot who keeps deservedly running into trouble with the SEC (imagine half as much oversight for politicians…).

If by trouble you mean the greatest year over year production and sales gains ever for an American auto manufacturer, then sure. Again, I really do believe that Tesla is getting judged by a standard that no one else has ever achieved.


As for Musk.... I recommend you (and anyone else) watch Elon's Joe Rogan podcast. To call him a bumbling idiot is easy to do... at a surface level. But really watch that podcast and try to see him and understand him as a person. He is truly someone who has a gift.... "brilliant" is a good descriptor for him.... but he also very obviously has some very odd and sad quirks/anxieties/social challenges... I really think there is a disorder there but I dont know what.... there are obvious common sense things and social cues that fly over his head. And it's very clear that he is also a victim of his own brilliance.... that it wears on him, and causes a lot of negative traits and after watching that podcast I truly felt bad for him . He is human. But, thank god there are people like him to dream big and that are smart enough and crazy enough to do something about it.

He should not be the CEO of anything. He should not be in charge of operations. That's where Apple could come in to help. The reality is that Steve Jobs was not all that different.

Which maybe goes to your point — Tesla could use some more professional management, and Apple could use some of Tesla's innovation. I just don't think there's much left for Tesla to offer, and I don't think they're a great fit. That could just be conservative me, though — I'd much rather Apple stay focus on IT.

again, the amount of investment that Tesla has made in its gigafactories, superchargers, its manufacturing and distribution is huge. They are the biggest and best battery manufacturer in the world (with the help of Panasonic). If you watch their autonomy keynote from a week ago you will also see that they have a massive advantage in the autonomy field by having the largest fleet of autonomous capable vehicles providing neural network feedback.

That was true a few years ago, but the Model 3 hasn't lived up to its promise.

Huh? Care to back that up?

It's not that Tesla lacks market share. It's that they seem to have run out of ideas.

you don't follow Tesla too closely huh?

There is rarely a week that goes by without a Tesla announcement/software feature release. Their product pipeline may seem obvious but is clear and ambitious. Their autopilot software has finally started rapidly increasing it's features and seeing consistent improvement after a 2-3 year reboot due to a shift in approach. They just produced their first in-house self-driving silicon and it's already in cars being sold today. If anything, I am worried that Tesla is being way too conservative with the Model Y, they clearly have been scared off by manufacturing challenges.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by kscherer I don't know. I guess I have a few things to say. Pros: - Apple gains a manufacturing partner with at least some experience; - Tesla is a respected brand; - Apple gains access to the Gigafactory, which has the [presumed] capability to manufacture all the batteries they could ever want; - The Gigafactory may also be able to supply batteries for Apple's other product line, so there is an advantage there; - Apple would immediately have access to hundreds of thousands of new, highly devoted customers who are willing to spend money on quality products

Another pro is that it immediately puts Apple in front as the leading electric car manufacture in a fast growth market. As I mentioned above, it also gives Apple access to the largest fleet of autonomy capable vehicles to provide shadow mode data for neural network autonomous improvements. I also think the vision and ambition of Elon is a pro that Apple needs.

Cons: - Elon Musk; - Quality issues need to be resolved; - Linux/Ubuntu-based OS would need extensive rebuild; - Manufacturing capacity needs to be resolved; - Serious culture clashes (especially regarding Musk and senior managers); - Branding—Do they change the name to Apple Car? I doubt it (see Beats); - The Gigafactory is at least partly owned by Panasonic (the actual battery supplier), so there is complication in that; - Tesla would cost Apple roughly $50billion, with no profitable future in sight; Apple can develop its own car for significantly less than this

Tesla's quality problems are overstated. Again, they are under the microscope. And their buyers are very intelligent and very "plugged in". I don't know of any other car that is as scrutinized at delivery/pickup for "panel gaps" as a Tesla is. Some of this "quality" stuff has created a life of its own.

As for profitability... the funny thing about Tesla is "profitability" is a lot easier to achieve if they have the capital to set the table to achieve it. Starting a mass production car company, in the United States, from scratch, is incredibly expensive..... building out a charging infrastructure to support that is incredibly expensive, building the battery factories from scratch to support that is incredibly expensive... building out the distribution to support that is incredibly expensive.... once that is all done.... there can be profit..... and probably very healthy profit. apple has that capital.... they could turn Tesla profitable far quicker than Tesla can on its own.




—

Honestly, I don't think it makes sense. When Apple bought Beats for $3billion, at least Beats was a profitable company under solid, mature leadership. Tesla is struggling to find money and Musk is a loose canon, and that combination would cost Apple $50billion+, depending on the market at time of purchase. Also, it would likely bring Apple into direct competition with their CarPlay partners, and I can see every manufacturer dumping them practically overnight, although I suppose an argument could be made that other car makers would not want to anger their iPhone-owning customers.

Apples to Oranges comparison. The growth potential (and thus revenue and profit potential) in transportation is insanely larger than headphones.

CarPlay... at this point, CarPlay exists because the car buying public has demanded it from auto manufacturers, not because of Apple's partnerships.

[chucker]

Found the fanboy. This was kind of a dick reply.

But still. You're being extremely defensive. It's not a secret that in recent years, Musk has made sales promises time and again that he hasn't been able to meet. It's kind of a miracle that investors continue not to fire him.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by chucker Found the fanboy. This was kind of a dick reply. But still. You're being extremely defensive. It's not a secret that in recent years, Musk has made sales promises time and again that he hasn't been able to meet. It's kind of a miracle that investors continue not to fire him.

Lol. Calling someone a fanboy on a Apple fanboy message board is amusing. (Btw, much more of a dick move to acknowledge being a dick but just cross it out but you know that).

Not being defensive, just disputing/questioning your statements that don’t appear to be based on facts but instead the narrative you have created in your head.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Lol. Calling someone a fanboy on a Apple fanboy message board is amusing. (Btw, much more of a dick move to acknowledge being a dick but just cross it out but you know that).

If you say so.

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Not being defensive, just disputing/questioning your statements that don’t appear to be based on facts but instead the narrative you have created in your head.

Um, same?

[Brave Ulysses]

I know this is difficult for you, but you just might not know what you’re talking about.. This was kind of a dick reply.

[Dr. Bobsky]

Is it really necessary to shit on each other?

BU -- you are clearly a fan of Musk/Tesla, there's no shame in that... fanboy isn't even much of a pejorative these days.

chucker -- I suspect you know that you are pushing BU's triggers and use this to end the conversation when it becomes too taxing. It's also ok to just let it be.

and self-reflection -- putting myself between two passionate forum members is just going to lead to more arguments, why do you do this?

[chucker]

I actually agree with this part:

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses nice to see some life and meaningful discussion come back to this place :-)

But a few posts later, I felt the thread kind of devolved into a "you can either love or hate Tesla" discussion.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky BU -- you are clearly a fan of Musk/Tesla, there's no shame in that... fanboy isn't even much of a pejorative these days.

Well, pejorative or not, I did feel some posts in this thread were like the occasional Gruber article where Apple is great and can do no wrong, only now it's about Tesla. My gut reaction was a three-word response. A quarter hour later, that felt bad. I can respect that that's not enough.

Two years ago, I would've agreed that Tesla's future was rosy. These days, my impression isn't quite as positive. Even back then, though, I wasn't convinced Apple should have outright bought them.

(I'm also not a car nerd. Not to mention that, climate-wise, we'd be even better off with fewer cars than with electric cars.)

[Dr. Bobsky]

Wasn't there a report here that given Germany's grid runs on coal and the ecological cost of making the batteries, etc., electric cars are often worse for the environment than their gas powered equivalents. Granted some of this was using a conservative estimation for the lifetime of the batteries and didn't incorporate the strong potential for being able to recycle the lithium in the batteries...

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by chucker I actually agree with this part: But a few posts later, I felt the thread kind of devolved into a "you can either love or hate Tesla" discussion. Well, pejorative or not, I did feel some posts in this thread were like the occasional Gruber article where Apple is great and can do no wrong, only now it's about Tesla. My gut reaction was a three-word response. A quarter hour later, that felt bad. I can respect that that's not enough. Two years ago, I would've agreed that Tesla's future was rosy. These days, my impression isn't quite as positive. Even back then, though, I wasn't convinced Apple should have outright bought them. (I'm also not a car nerd. Not to mention that, climate-wise, we'd be even better off with fewer cars than with electric cars.)

I know this is hard for you to understand due to your intense arrogance, but the only reason it comes across as a Gruber article is because you are throwing out strongly opinionated statements with no substance to back it up. You don’t know when to admit you don’t know what you are talking about. When presented with facts you dismiss them as fan boy talking points. You might learn a bit with a bit more humility and interest in “listening”.

Every comment you have made since, including the ones quoted above are these broad generalizations that make it seem like you are a cranky old guy who watches the evening news and knows barely enough about a topic not even to be dangerous.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky Wasn't there a report here that given Germany's grid runs on coal and the ecological cost of making the batteries, etc., electric cars are often worse for the environment than their gas powered equivalents. Granted some of this was using a conservative estimation for the lifetime of the batteries and didn't incorporate the strong potential for being able to recycle the lithium in the batteries...

40% of germany’s Power comes from renewable energy.

The whole environmental impact thing is a very complicated thing to evaluate. I don’t really know what study to trust. On the flip side. What is the environmental cost of getting a gallon of oil out of the ground in the Middle East and transporting it to North America and into the gas tank of a combustion engine car?


But lithium batteries.... I don’t think we fully understand and appreciate the impact of those as well. All I know is not having toxic exhaust and not going to a grungy gas station and pouring 20+ gallons of oil into my car every couple of days sure “feels” better.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky Is it really necessary to shit on each other? BU -- you are clearly a fan of Musk/Tesla, there's no shame in that... fanboy isn't even much of a pejorative these days. chucker -- I suspect you know that you are pushing BU's triggers and use this to end the conversation when it becomes too taxing. It's also ok to just let it be. and self-reflection -- putting myself between two passionate forum members is just going to lead to more arguments, why do you do this?

I appreciate that. You’re not wrong.

Although I am honestly disappointed that facts and debate are now seen as clear evidence of being a “fan” of something. I guess that’s why we are where we are politically these days.

[chucker]

Gassée’s take on Tesla is interesting. Namely that Tesla has one leg up on the competition by integrating software rather than sourcing it from third parties (and largely just branding it), and that this may be similar to the “PC guys are not just going to walk in” misguided optimism of Palm/Nokia/Microsoft/Blackberry. VW, BMW et al think Tesla is a weird outsider who can’t manufacture at scale, but they still regard software as a non-essential add-on a third party can make for them.

[kscherer]

I was just visiting Tesla's website and noticed that a Supercharger station can recharge the battery of a Model 3 to 180 miles in about 15 minutes. I wasn't aware this was a thing, but it definitely improves the long-range capabilities of the car, at least during mild weather. During hot summer days or cold winter days, A/C and heater power draw still worries me a bit.

[Robo]

If Apple buys Tesla (and honestly I think they will; Musk has been spending like a madman and meaningful competition is just starting to arrive, which I think is going to put Tesla in a pretty difficult cash position) I hope they change that goddamn logo.

[chucker]

I think the logo is fine?

[Yontsey]

Originally Posted by kscherer I was just visiting Tesla's website and noticed that a Supercharger station can recharge the battery of a Model 3 to 180 miles in about 15 minutes. I wasn't aware this was a thing, but it definitely improves the long-range capabilities of the car, at least during mild weather. During hot summer days or cold winter days, A/C and heater power draw still worries me a bit.

My cousin just purchased his second Tesla and he’s never had issues with range. We’re from Cleveland and he’s gone to Chicago and Columbus regularly. Both of his had the higher range options though as well.

Side note, aside from the horrible financials those cars are simply amazing.

[turtle]

I think I'd have to be one of those guys that removed the car's logo if it were an Apple Logo. While Apple could extend it's reach with auto manufacturing added to it's portfolio, I think it would muddy their waters way too much.

[kscherer]

Well, Apple owns Beats and haven't changed that logo. I think we'll be fine.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by turtle I think I'd have to be one of those guys that removed the car's logo if it were an Apple Logo. While Apple could extend it's reach with auto manufacturing added to it's portfolio, I think it would muddy their waters way too much.

I don’t think we’ll ever see the Apple logo on the hood of a car. It would look a little goofy and asymmetrical in a bad way. I think they’d either have a different logo/brand that fits cars better, or they’d buy a brand like Tesla.

Tesla’s logo is the ugliest thing on the car. It (and the logotype that goes with it) is trying way too hard to be futuristic and sci-fi, like a teenager’s vision of what looks “badass” rather than something that inspires confidence in its design or engineering. It’s maaaybe fine for a concept car startup, but electric cars are fast becoming the present, and Tesla is outgrowing it. A luxury car shouldn’t have a logo evocative of a game console.

Apple kept the Beats logo because the Beats logo was good. It was also super recognizable; ask people in its target market to draw it and I bet a bunch of them could. I’m not sure many people could accurately draw the Tesla logo from memory; it’s a little too complex and weirdly fragile-looking.

It’s just bad and honestly amateurish, unbecoming of a luxury car. Like, the crossbar of the T is the thick part, and the vertical stroke is the thin part? That’s backwards and makes the icon look weirdly top-heavy.

I think Apple would redraw the “T” icon to something simpler and sturdier, and then ditch the dated-looking sci-fi movie logotype for something more modern.