Elon Musk says he tried to sell Tesla to Apple, which didn’t bite and wouldn't even meet Elon Musk says he once tried to sell Tesla to Apple, but Cupertino wouldn’t even agree to a meeting with CEO Tim Cook. The Musky one revealed this version of history in a Tweet. During the darkest days of the Model 3 program, I reached out to Tim Cook to discuss the possibility of Apple acquiring Tesla (for 1/10 of our …
Steady on now.
We all know the wheels and tyres will be a $50,000 add-on to make the product seem cheaper. They will be made of magnesium alloy (even the tyres).
Those of that cant afford the add-on will have to buy the cheaper magnesium alloy iBricks to stand our Apple cars on when they're on the driveway.
Also, don't forget the other accessories that will be mandatory because the Apple car won't support third party stuff like:
Kids seats (the Apple one will be solid magnesium alloy).
Footwell Mats (magnesium).
Rear view mirrors (three iPhones).
A charging cable ($3,000 custom lightning cable).
A garage renovation with a specific keyed cutout to fit the Apple car to make sure you can't park any other vehicles in it.
Let's also not forget the drivel we'll hear off fanbois such as:
Yeah it has much less horsepower, but it's smoother and more optimised (despite metal tyres).
I only bought it because all my music is on iTunes.
...and of course the standard Apple feature set:
Easy to crack windscreen that can only be repaired at an Apple authorised repair shop.
Non-removable battery.
Not user serviceable in any way. Want to top up the screen wash? Go to the Apple shop and by a screenwash module.
Even though we know the Apple car will be crap, we all want one just so we can drive it through the window of an Apple store to get it to the genius bar at which point we'll climb out and throw the fucking keys in the Genius' face.
And you do have to wonder, did they do so in spite of the guy leaving to join Apple, or because of it?
IDK. Tesla's stock price is complete BS. The fantasy it's an IT company, not a car mfg, persists so I guess people will continue to make money off the back of it. Buy, buy buy, bye bye is not a stock tip but perhaps a sensible strategy?
Tesla's not so much a 'thing' company as a technology company. They've got a lot of new technologies from batteries to manufacturing that could be licensed to other companies. (Not Apple, surprisingly, because Apple don't really make stuff -- they get others to make Apple branded products for them.)(So if Apple made a car I'd expect it to be a Tesla with Apple branded software on the display screen.)
Given the poor build quality of their vehicles I don't know that anyone would be interested in their manufacturing technology. Even their battery technology is likely going to be eclipsed by the big battery makers now that they have taken an interest in this market.
Yes, but Panasonic is hardly the only battery maker out there. Beside the names you know like LG, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba etc, there are also other very large battery makers like CATL and others.
It's not like these companies have been sitting around doing nothing all these years, they have their own fleet of scientists and engineers figuring out how to push the technology forward.
GM's new battery, which I think are being developed with LG, are supposed to be much cheaper than any other current tech. And I'm sure they are not alone. Everyone is trying to make the big breakthrough that would make EVs viable for almost anyone. It would surprise me to see companies like Duracell or Energizer jump in to the market.
Earlier this year Sony showed off an EV at CES. Though I believe it was meant as a showcase for their cameras and sensors, they are actually in a better position to make a car than Apple is as they have a lot of relevant technology already.
"they already have the basic shape with their rockets."
FWIW, Blue Origin have them well and truly beaten in the design stakes. Sadly, they can't get it up as high or for as long as SpaceX although both seem to be doing well at going down after going up.
Heard an interesting (well, I thought so) take on Apple getting into cars the other day. Before the world's biggest cash cow of consumers paying $1000 every other year to replace their pocket computer at huge mark up - the previous biggest cash cow was people paying $000s every 5 years to replace their car.
Remember the "what's good for GM is good for America" meme?
Buy, buy buy, bye bye is not a stock tip but perhaps a sensible strategy?
... actually it is a stock tip but much much more importantly part of a deep commentary on the nature of time
Any colour as long as it's white.
Only authorised Apple service.
Only Apple charging points.
Rounded corners.
A notch out of each window.
No sockets inside.
Only Apple tyres.
Special tools for newly invented head profile on all the bolts.
Glue anywhere possible instead of screws, poppers, clips or bolts.
No door key, use an iPhone or Apple watch.
No main key.
No buttons or knobs, only touch panels.
No steering wheel, gestures instead.
No door handles to spoil the smooth lines, use touch gestures.
Air jets instead of ugly wipers on the windscreen.
No mirrors, only cameras.
You've to buy a different version for a bigger battery pack with longer range.
Also twice as expensive as the most expensive electric cars.
Volvo's - especially the SUV models - are pretty aggressive though, as are VW drivers, but Skoda drivers take the biscuit. Scrappy little so-and-so's most of them, perpetually angry that nobody appreciates their parts-bin Audis. SKODA = Sharpen Knife Or Don't Argue (generally good advice anyway, mind you)
I'm not surprised Cook refused to meet after this offer. He may as well have phoned up and said "Hi Tim, the company's in seriously deep shit, and I'm looking for some mug to get some money out of before it collapses". OK, the company got through this and subsequently succeeded, but nobody knew that was going to happen at the time.
Indeed, at that point in Telsa's past it was loosing more and more money each year.
From this article the chart indicates that they were burning through money at a prodigious rate. They were up to $14billion in debt and loosing about a $1billion per quarter!
Even now they are at least returning a profit, but still smaller than the losses they were making two or three years ago.
Elon is very much a tech guy, in his mind (and possibly done on paper) the only way Tesla & the Model 3 was going to be profitable is if 99.9% of the production was automated. At the time, he was apparently having a lot of trouble teaching robots to weld his new aluminum frame, was even hiring human hands to weld some, to get a few cars out the door and fulfill customer promises.
This was from the news & twittersphere, so Cook probably knew as well. If there's some fundamental flaw in the company, that's one reason not to meet. But the problem with Tesla at the time was well understood to be purely a technical one. It's one thing if the company has cancerous tumor, it's another if they have a limited runway and the problem can be fixed by throwing more money at it for long enough.
Exactly, but as an Apple shareholder I'm disappointed that Tim didn't at least take the meeting to see if there might be a pony somewhere in that mountain of poop. The thing is, no one ever comes looking for a sugar daddy when things are going well. Savvy business people can spot a temporary problem (solved with cash) and recognize an opportunity, and a potential bargain, when others only see risk. But you can't make that assessment if you don't engage. A meeting would have cost Tim nothing but a little bit of his time, so yeah, disappointed he wasn't thinking harder about what to do with that mountain of cash he's sitting on. He pretty much has a fiduciary responsibility to take meetings like that.
Trouble is he has a bunch of fiduciary reasons not to take the meeting.
Apple invests and he gets a bunch of lawsuits from Apple shareholders who complain it isn't a good use of their money, from the Fed claiming he is now a monopoly, from the press with "Apple product kills" everytime a car crashes
If he bought stock personally after the meeting he is in trouble for insider trading and more if Apple does any future deals with Tesla like allowing a Tesla app on the iStore or bundling iTunes with a Tesla
Trouble is he has a bunch of fiduciary reasons not to take the meeting.Apple invests and he gets a bunch of lawsuits from Apple shareholders who complain it isn't a good use of their money, from the Fed claiming he is now a monopoly, from the press with "Apple product kills" everytime a car crashes
Yup. I've had similar situations when competitors wanted meetings. One example, competitor wanted to talk to us (ie sell) about a service we were already developing. Quick check with counsel and advice was to state at the beginning of the meeting that we were competing & minute everything. Meeting continued and explored potential benefits, ie we had infrastructure, they didn't. It didn't go anywhere, but stayed amicable & probably mutually beneficial, independently offering the service to industry. Competition can be good like that.
But in Apple's case, I guess it got more complex. Apple didn't need Tesla, and if Tesla had gone titsup.com, could potentially pick over the carcass in bankruptcy. In hindsight, an investment could have been a good idea given Tesla's share price now. That would be a bit like when Microsoft invested in Apple when it was in trouble.. But rather upset the Apple fanbois when they found out about that.
And the future could also be interesting. Personally, I'm not a fan of Tesla's designs, exterior or interior. Apple's a design boutique, so might create something neat there.. Although exterior design's more a function of aerodynamics rather than aesthetics these days.. Cybertruck being an exception to both.
No he does not have a fiduciary responsibility, apple is not a hedge fund. As a shareholder you know what business Apple is in.
Why did Musk even expect a meeting? There was and still is no indication that Apple are actually doing a full car other than rumours. Tesla is only really worth the battery tech. Again going into component manufacturing as a consumer brand like Apple is pointless.
Musk offering to sell out shows the failed startup exit strategy play. Banks lend so selling out for less than value is a fire sale. Do not forget that Musk hyping on twitter is a key factor in getting tesla to its present value. It will never get this value as a subdivision of a company.
Sort of true, but limited. Apple's cash did bail out the commercial failure that NeXT was going to be, but Apple also did that because they needed something that basically only NeXT could and was willing to provide. Their OS was too limited and, in their mind, in need of replacement. Writing a new one from scratch would have taken too long to finish, so they shopped around for companies which already had a new OS they would view as an improvement. NeXT's eventually won out for various reasons including its Unix compatibility. So Apple was looking for what NeXT could provide at the same time as NeXT was looking for a bunch of needed cash. In Tesla's case, they were the only one looking around; either Apple wasn't really building a car in which case they didn't need Tesla, or they're already working on their own so they didn't need Tesla. Either way, this one is a lot more one-sided.
As an Apple shareholder one of the things I like best is that they only do very small targeted acquisitions. They buy technologies, not customer bases. Acquisitions over $10 billion almost never pay off - just look at the huge number of failed acquisitions in that range then count on one hand the number that worked out well for the buyer.
Tesla's stock price is massively inflated by fanboys who think Musk is the second coming. If Apple bought them their Tesla shares would be exchanged for Apple shares, and most of them would sell and the Musk premium would evaporate and it would be a terrible purchase in the long run. The fact that Tesla's market cap is higher than the nine largest automakers in the world combined shows out of whack with reality it is. Apple didn't miss out on any gains, because those silly gains were only possible with Tesla as an independent entity.
There's a fair amount to like about Musk, in fairness. Amongst them seems to be a willingness to get the right people in the right jobs to begin to realise his dreams.
SpaceX is arguably a romping triumph.
But I still struggle with the other sides of him - the one that calls rescue divers paedophiles and gets away with it. The one that behaves like a spoiled child when he can't get his own way or someone slights him in some way.
I disagree.
Tesla is indeed driven by his charisma but I bought a Model 3 and I can safely say that, even with all its foibles it's by far the best and most fun car I've ever had.
When you have a product as good as that, I suspect there are fairly good odds of success.
I don't buy a lot of the fanboy-istic exaggeration that seems to go with news about Tesla these days (especially in US-centric forums, these lot can be seriously insane), but they really are superb cars and the vast majority of critics have never driven or owned them, which I find interesting.
And yes, I know about the whole "Full Self Driving" thing, which I didn't spend money on for obvious reasons.
At this point why would you buy a BMW/Audi/Merc over a Tesla?
None of the other luxury makers can compete on technology or cool and they can't launch anything electric which disrupts their dealer network. That's why BMW launched the electric noddy car, Audi will do a hybrid LeMans car and MB will ignore it.
"Apple building a TV rumours. The latter never happened." I think this example is a bit of a give away. I mean, suppose Apple did build a TV, but decided not to produce it. Then the rumour is both true and false.
Like the square root of one hundred, I suppose it is something we will never know; unless somewhere there is some one who saw the alleged TV or Car for that matter.
ps: Rogers, a Canadian component of the ruling media duopoly, let verification of the Apple TV leak about 6 years ago via an over-enthusiastic employee as part of some sort of certification ritual.
Some more marketing ideas for Apple biz folks:
* User needs to pay Apple $99 before the door could be opened.
* Two years later the car will travel at max 20mph and the user has to upgrade to iCar2pro
* Silver plated steering wheel for $5999 only
* iCar can be charged only through special chargers available in Cupertino and in Iceland.
* iCar chargers won't be sold with the car to save our mother Earth.
"During the darkest days of the Model 3 program, I reached out to Tim Cook to discuss the possibility of Apple acquiring Tesla (for 1/10 of our current value). He refused to take the meeting."
Even if this is true I fail to see the relevance to Apple's announcement they are going to build their own car. The Musky one seems to prevent it as evidence that Apple are either not interested in building cars or are lying about building a car. I don't see how that's the case.
If Apple are going to build a car then I suspect a lot of the running gear will come from somewhere else this is pretty normal practice. Remember when Tesla basically just added electric power (plus dangerously ungrippy tyres) to a Lotus platform. And if you're on the sort of budget Apple are on you're not going to be looking at buying an iffy startup when they could just go to the biggest and best car manufacturers and buy a platform from them.
"Lithium-ion phosphate earned his scorn on grounds that it can’t be a breakthrough because Tesla already uses it. He declared a monocell “is electrochemically impossible, as max voltage is ~100X too low. Maybe they meant cells bonded together, like our structural battery pack?”"
I don't doubt that Apple may have figured out a way to make a monocell work. Low voltage maybe but one big battery could deliver a lot of current. How about something like a lot of low voltage motors in parallel. The drivetrain would be interesting but not impossible. And then there's the question of whether you had to use electric motors at all. There are potentially other ways of turning electricity into motion, although I can't think of a sensible efficient convenient way of making that work packaged in a car. For example I once saw a boat demonstrated that had a good old fashioned steam turbine where the water was heated electrically. It was only a POC and I can't see it working in a car but it shows that there are alternatives. There are even crazy alternatives like an inverter and transformers. Surely too heavy and bulky not to say inefficient, but again it shows the possibilities.
However...
What worries me about a monocell is the fire risk. We have seen problems with runaway in fires in EVs before. Individual cells suddenly igniting sometimes hours after the fire is extinguished. With a monocell holding the same amount of energy as the typical EV battery pack the potential conflagration doesn't bear thinking about.
a steam engine with an electric boiler is bound by the Carnot efficiency limit so not a good idea, without even using as much as the back of an envelope for calculation.
They could use a DC-AC converter to step up the voltage maybe... you know, a bit like Tesla's big idea (Nikolai, that is). You don't need 1000s of cells though, it's not as if all the cells in a Tesla power pack are in series.
That tells you everything about the valuation of Tesla on the stock market. If Apple was not willing to buy Tesla at 1/10th the price, they think that they can replicate their products much cheaper.
If Apple (or any other tech company) did think they could create a dominant market position taking over Tesla, they probably would have. That is what the tech industry does.
But I don't think Tesla can make the car industry much less competitive. It is not so difficult to build an electric car. And cars will be much, much cheaper once a large percentage is electric. Maybe if you want an Apple-equivalent in a car, you will buy a Tesla. Most people will buy the cheaper cars.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
