This is a great test of whether you "get" Apple. A lot of comments about what Apple should be doing, like how to take more market share from Android or Windows, actually make zero sense for Apple. This one actually does make sense.
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.
I'm not sure why you think to look at car sales in terms of 'how a car looks and feels'. There are manufacturers like BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Ferrari etc who have already solved those problems. And not just merely that. A lot of sophisticated software already runs in cars.
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.
You don't get it. You're still looking at Apple as just a brand.
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.
Apple is such an absolutely massive company, but Musk makes them look so small. On the one hand, Apple has more brand recognition and cash than God. On the other hand, when you spend your time dreaming about electric cars, rockets, and hyperloops... who would want to play with laptops?
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.
>>The future will be a different world, and while Apple shaped much of the last 20 years, I'm afraid that time is over.
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.
>>iPhone was released from a similar position of extreme secrecy.
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.
Don't underestimate that Apple has a good grasp of the cutting edge technologies even if they are not building those things themselves and putting out beta after beta. What Apple have a knack for is waiting until the technology is at a stage where there is a real and legitimate consumer use for the technology and refine it down to where its practically usable.
Futurist tech list google glass and self driving cars is exciting - but not within the grasps of real use by everyday people.
Sorry but if that were true Apple would have already replaced the Google search engine.
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.
I'm not seeing the synergies - the in-dash entertainment center having similar styling just isn't cutting it for me. That sort of thing would be more suited for a partnership kind of deal.
I was really hoping Microsoft would, and make Elon Musk CEO of Microsoft (back when they were looking still).
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).
Pure speculation, but it may be that MS is still regrouping after a less than stellar start to 2012. While it may be good for them to buy Tesla long term, its short term future (and therefore profits, which in turn will dictate other purchases) may depend on being able to refocus right now.
There's a lot of internal repair going on there and Apple may just be in a better position to do better with Tesla.
Not to say he also isn't a fan of Apple/Google/etc, however he famously was fired as CEO of PayPal for trying to switch the site from UNIX to a .NET stack.
True, but that's substantially different than "much needed."
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.
I don't see Musk working well within the structure Tim Cook would need to create in order for Tim to keep his job. I think it would be a huge mistake for Tesla.
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.
I had the same thinking. The only thing holding back current CE are battery. And it hasn't had any breakthrough for a long time. Although what the article stated isn't with any battery breakthrough but rather production issues.
And didnt we had a discussion long time ago World Reserve of Lithium not being a sustainable source for battery.
Totally possible, it might be for the battery or for may be its not buying but just sharing of technology. For. e.g. give battery technology and take dashboard technology.
What? No! Of course they shouldn't.
There's such a small overlap of core competencies that it makes it very hard for Apple to tell if they're getting a good deal or not. That should be enough of a reason for them to think twice.
All of this speculation reminds me of the AOL/Time warner or Skype/Ebay mergers. They were lauded as revolutionary at the time, but eventually fell apart when the companies discovered they had nothing in common. So will it be with Apple/Tesla, in my opinion.
If Apple wants to make a big, high profile investment that's aligned much better with their core business, they should buy an ISP/Mobile Network like Verizon or AT&T. Then they could shake up both sectors by cutting prices & encouraging competition.
Ah, very clever, omitting the question mark at the end of the title, thereby avoiding the imperatives of Betteridge's Law by technicality.
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:
Ha yes, exactly. This article is a big fantasy by someone who thinks Apple can bring something to Tesla apart from some design rules for the tablet in the dash.
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.
I think you miss the forest for the trees. Jobs wasn't just someone with a certain set of skills that we have to compare against the skills of others -- he was someone with a certain self-confident aura about him that brought big ideas to life. Elon Musk is proving to be something similar, even if how he does it is very different.
Well... Apple is more or less top dog now. But sooner or later a bigger fish will swim up to them :) I found the idea of Apple buying Tesla funny, because in my eyes Tesla could very well be the bigger fish in the future. Does the Chinese reference need explaining given this context? :P
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.