What if Apple bought Tesla?
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
The right kind of perspective on this is -- and it will make some people apoplectic -- future cars are like iPads with wheels. They both are basically giant batteries with very sophisticated software and well crafted interfaces. Apple has the engineering organization to deliver those key things along with a certain approach to integrating services, sales and support. What they're missing is the automotive engineering and that's something Tesla has done a great job of building up.
The price would be unusually high for an Apple acquisition but only in absolute terms. What makes it an "Apple-y" acquisition target is that it's an engineering piece of a much larger system, the "iPad on wheels", where the real future value is.
That is why Jobs was confident an Apple car would take 50% of the market. Not by building a better mousetrap but by redefining the product category.
These days, nearly every car manufacturer has high end cars which have these.
Unless you have simply too radical a thing to offer, everything what you say already exists.
The iPhone didn't just have a different "look and feel". It redefined the category and obsoleted everything else overnight. That same process could happen with cars.
Musk plays the game on an entirely different level.
I think Sergey Brin understands this. Google is playing on that level. Self-driving cars, robotics, machine learning, Google Glass, augmented reality, NLP, etc.
The future will be a different world, and while Apple shaped much of the last 20 years, I'm afraid that time is over.
Futurist tech list google glass and self driving cars is exciting - but not within the grasps of real use by everyday people.
Technology isn't what you can just search on the internet and copy paste. It takes years to continually build and tune technology that powers things like Google.
The thing about Google is the mere scale of research in AI and other areas going into building things like self driving cars isn't something your average programming team can code up in 6 months when given the requirements. There are a lot of hard problems, that take time.
Things like iPhone, iPod etc. No matter how radically different in UI aren't in the same scale of technology comparison as a search engines or a self driving cars are. The latter takes time, a lot of effort, and precious brain cycles applied to core science topics over a lot of time to achieve.
The difference is like inventing a drug to cure cancer, and comparing it with software to distribute it. No matter how difficult the latter is, there is no way you can compare it with former.
This statement is a very good example of how successful Apple's secrecy practices are.
You look at Google and seeing all the "cool" shit they are publicizing. Glass, robots, NLP, and so on.
You then look at Apple and see... nothing. Maybe a few speculative press release from mysterious "sources" but nothing that will clearly indicate what they are working on in their underground bunkers. Short of a prototype device being stolen in public, you don't know with any certainty what the hell they are working on.
So then you conclude that Google has a good grasp of the future whereas Apple is sliding into irrelevance.
That's exactly what Apple wants.
The first rule of warfare is to hide your plans and movements from the enemy. Apple is in a great position right now: the only thing the tech world knows for certain they are working on is the next versions of their current product line.
To give you an idea of how advantageous this position is: the iPhone was released from a similar position of extreme secrecy. That's why competitors were at least a year, if not two or more, behind. By the time they caught up, Apple had already built a war chest of tens of billions of dollars.
To suggest that they aren't doing anything that will shape the future is the epitome of silliness.
Every one knew that a iPhone was coming. The surprise was just how radically different the UI was. The kind of thing they had packed in such a small place.
The surprise was what iPhone was, not if apple was building a phone. The latter was very well known.
Musk is a Microsoft fan. Microsoft would get a much-needed visionary, and Tesla (and other initiatives) would get a much-needed cash infusion.
I don't think Musk/Tesla would fit in at Apple. Apple already has enough "vision". I can't see him wanting to answer to anyone, and I can't see Apple giving him the reigns from Tim Cook (like the article agrees with).
There's a lot of internal repair going on there and Apple may just be in a better position to do better with Tesla.
I don't mean to quibble, but Tesla have also shown that they are not shy about dipping back into the markets for capital. Their last offering raised ~$1 billion. I think any potential acquirer has more to gain than Tesla.
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-paypal-mafia-is-even-more...
It's inconceivable that he'd take that job. So much less interesting than anything else he's got going on and he doesn't need the money.
Plus, the kind of manufacturing and operations Tesla is looking at is something Apple would be just as inexperienced with, and still might not work out.
To me, it would make sense for a Detroit company to buy Tesla. Older group cannibalizes younger while letting them retain overall independence. Car brands have done that before.
Part of me thought of Tesla buying a part of Detroit.
Tesla is going to start making their own batteries. Apple uses a lot of batteries.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24531612/tesla-motors...
And didnt we had a discussion long time ago World Reserve of Lithium not being a sustainable source for battery.
-The car would only have one pedal, not two, to make it easier for new drivers.
-It won't have Windows.
-The navigation would use Apple Maps.
EDIT: And I see the actual article title got around the law in a different way, by asking the question such that the answer "No" is nonsensical! Still, I like the sound of that exchange:
Writer: What if Apple bought Tesla? Me: NO
Are all these Journalist really that much of an idiot? Or do they try to sell a new Steve Jobs to the world.
Elon Musk is not Steve Jobs, Far from it. Not saying this as good thing or a bad thing. But for those area that Steve Jobs are genius at, Elon Musk doesn't even earn pass marks.
Lei Jun , CEO of Xiaomi, I mean WTF, Steve Jobs of China? I admit Lei Jun is good in things Steve Jobs aren't very good it. But again, no Lei Jun is not another Steve Jobs.
Other excellent 'OMG tht wud b 2 awsum' dynamic synergy takeover/purchase ideas:
1) Santa Claus buys Disney
2) Comcast buys Time Warner
3) Superman buys Spiderman
4) Peter GriffIn buys statue of Gwyneth Paltrow making out with Harriet Tubman
Tesla survives because of government incentives but if you were to invest private money on it, research would eat most of it in the blink of an eye.