Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Talks Tesla, Apple, Model X
Nerval's Lobster writes "Tesla CEO Elon Musk admitted in a Bloomberg interview that he had engaged in 'conversations' with Apple, but refused to disclose the content of those talks. Rumors have circulated for several days that Apple executives met with Musk last spring about a possible acquisition. An anonymous source with knowledge of those discussions told SFGate.com that discussions included Adrian Perica, who heads up Apple's M&A division, and possibly Apple CEO Tim Cook. 'Both [Tesla and Apple] have built brands based on advanced engineering and stylish user-friendly design,' the newspaper noted. 'And each company has become a symbol of Silicon Valley innovation—even among people who don't own their products.' But in the interview, Musk framed an acquisition as 'very unlikely,' mostly because it would distract Tesla from its goal of building an affordable electric car. 'I don't see any scenario,' he added, in which Tesla could juggle the issues associated with a takeover while producing vehicles that met his perfectionist standards. He did suggest, however, that Apple's iOS and Google Android could find their respective ways into Tesla's in-vehicle software. Tesla executives once considered integrating an early version of Android into the company's first electric cars, but the software ultimately wasn't ready to serve as an automotive application. Nonetheless, Musk could see iOS or Android within the context of a 'projected mode or emulator' that would allow someone to use applications while driving, although 'that's peripheral to the goal of Tesla.'"
Why haven't the workers taken over and socialized the means of production yet? Why is our destiny as a species tied to the whims of a handful of super-wealthy idle parasites?
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details, except they found Slashdot Beta open on his computer screen nearby. I'm sure everyone in the Slashington audience will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Maybe Apple will rent part of Tesla's factory, at least for a few years. Until Tesla makes enough cars to use the whole factory, they might appreciate the revenue of renting part of it to Apple. And Apple might want to manufacture some more devices in the US, without having to get as many permits as if they owned the factory.
I guess Apple would have less paperwork, environmental impact reports, etc. if they use a factory that already exists, than if they build a new factory. Does anyone know if that's true?
... he's about the only person alive who could be a believable successor to Steve Jobs. So he's got that going for him :)
yes, we have no bananas
Apple's products are affordable to a family making an average middle class budget. The fact that anyone considers Apple to be a high-end manufacturer with products that are a status symbol is just clever marketing. It's not uncommon to go to Walmart (yeah, those of us who didn't make a fortune on Bitcoins still need to eat), and see someone paying with EBT while texting/yapping away on an iPhone. On the other hand, a Tesla model S is 1/3rd to 1/4th the cost of the average American home and about equally as expensive as a low-end manufactured home.
Tesla's cars actually are just a status symbol. They're truly only affordable to people who otherwise would have no trouble buying gasoline and want the warm fuzzy feeling (or the arrogant smugness) that comes from knowing your car is running on 32% less fossil fuel than everyone else's 100% dinosaur burners.
Also, per percentage of fires per number of units sold, Apple's products are significantly less likely to spontaneously catch fire. Hey don't flame me, it's actually true.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
The 2014 Honda Civic I have heard can interface with a phone via an HDMI cable. Full blown interfaces are inevitable, probably in less than 5 years.
... ]
The selling point of integration via HDMI is that vehicles no longer need to have their own navigation systems (which is extra equipment and rather pointless in the smartphone era) and instead uses the phone navigation app.
[Shorter version: Apple acquiring Tesla would be stupid for both companies. Tesla shouldn't exclude Android, Apple doesn't have an interest in the auto market --- and standard interfaces will be expected in the near future
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Hoax
Tesla would want to take over Apple why, exactly? What has Apple done that was interesting, lately?
Of course, I hear Facebook has paid out heavily for a random new crowd/media company, so. Dot.com bubble 2.0?
Oh man, I can't wait for the iTesla. The whole exterior will be made out of smooth black glass; hell, the interior too. You'll only be able to download power from the iVolts store and the power won't be compatible with any other electronic device. It'll cost twice as much as a regular Tesla, but the interface is soooo much better. You just swipe the dashboard to make it go, press the button to make it stop and swipe left or right to steer. Who needs all those stupid buttons and wheels and crap? Plus, Apple will be able to patent the rounded tire, which will keep all those plebian imitators like Ford and BMW from usng rounded tires when we know Jobs innovated them.
I know Tesla doesn't want to have dealerships, but what if the talks had to do with some Apple Stores also becoming Tesla dealerships, at least in the states that are giving Tesla legal woes over selling directly to consumers?
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
He did suggest, however, that Apple's iOS and Google Android could find their respective ways into Tesla's in-vehicle software.
Do not want!
I don't want to be forced to jailbreak my car in order to do with it what I please.
Meme
Wireless mirroring is already a feature of iOS devices and AFAICT it can be done with Android too. This would be less cumbersome than HDMI cabling and avoid a clunky connector and adapter (at least for iOS phones).
There's only two pieces missing from it -- remote touch, so you can use the car's built-in dash screen for control and display fitting, so the phone's display is formatted to fit the car screen's aspect ratio.
The latter may be more complicated given the way apps seem to be written for iOS in regard to screen size (eg, updates to support iPhone 5, 1x/2x mode on iPad). The easiest 'fix' would seem to be a car display close in aspect ratio to iPhone (just larger to make it driver-friendly).
Remote touch doesn't seem like it would be that hard to add, and for all I know its baked into mirroring, just not enabled. You could even disable display the keyboard or video playback as long as the vehicle is in motion (my Volvo does something similar with its in-built menu system; most of it is unavailable when the car is in motion).
The phone display could just be another tab/view of the car's in-dash display which could then dispense with navigation apps and everything else that doesn't involve the controlling the car's components like HVAC or built-in radio.
hello every body
Buy your iTesla today!
Both Google and Apple are swimming in money that they just can not seem to find a good way to spend. Google really seems to hate the idea of becoming a hardware company but Apple is all about hardware. I could see a Tesla with Apple IOS for the infotainment system being a huge hit. Google and their love of self driving cars could be a fit. Imagine a self driving Tesla? Right now both Apple and Google are trying to decide "what next".
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Tesla is about cars, American cars, going fast and feeling good, you know vrooom vrooom. Heck, even saving gas these days and being non-Detroit is fine. But I sure as heck don't need any more closed source digital crap in my life, let alone spying on it and trying to siphon off more of my dollars at every turn. Screw that, Apple can stay the FUCK out of my car.
I'm sorry, could someone define "affordable"? Starting in the mid-60's is nowhere near affordable, and unless Tesla's plan include slashing that to 1/3 of the price, I don't see anyone calling it affordable.
Both Google and Apple are swimming in money that they just can not seem to find a good way to spend.
Very true but they aren't going to change industries altogether. Apple is going to remain in consumer electronics and Google is going to remain in advertising. Getting into the auto business would be very foolish of them since they have no particular expertise to bring to the table there. Google is doing some interesting research projects with cars but that's a very far cry from producing real products they sell to retail customers. Furthermore if they buy Tesla they likely are limiting their ability to sell to any other auto maker (GM, Ford etc) and that is likely to be a MUCH bigger market.
Google really seems to hate the idea of becoming a hardware company but Apple is all about hardware.
This is somewhat of a myth. Yes Apple works hard on making some very nice hardware and they do have some real expertise but at their core Apple is a software company. There really is very little difference on the inside between a Mac and a Dell. Put Windows on a Mac and you'd be hard pressed to tell who made the computer unless you looked at the box. Same with the iPhone, the underlying electronics aren't much different than their competitors. Same with the iPad. Furthermore Apple designs the hardware but they don't make it and have outsourced most of what manufacturing expertise they once possessed to specialist companies.
Apple makes money by selling a bunch of software that they tie to their own hardware. NOBODY would pay a premium for a Mac that ran Windows only, no matter how nice the box. So what that really means is that people are buying the software. What sets Apple products apart (for better or worse) is their software. Apple just realizes that the best channel to sell their software is by bundling it with hardware they design and control. This costs them market share but so far has brought them tremendous profits.
That's precisely what Tesla is planning to do. Slice the price at least to half in the Gen-III car (Model E) and then further in the Gen-IV car. Gen-III is 3-4 years out, Gen-IV probably 3-4 after that. Price goal for Model E is ~30-35k$ and with savings from gasoline and service should be equivalent to 20-25k$ cars in total cost of ownership.
If nothing else, both companies desperately need better battery technology. Could be they were talking about swapping patents or joint R&D.
What does this button d$#%* NO CARRIER
Nice rumour mongering on this one. I'll suggest it's battery related. It's no secret that Tesla is planning the worlds largest LiON cell plant. They're planning on being the largest user of LiON cells on the planet... I'm guessing that Apple is right up there too. Tesla will need partners... some with cash, some with tech. Apple fits the cash bill...
You mean people with too much money and not enough intelligence to manage it well?
...Apple doesn't actually make hardware. They design pretty cases and stuff hardware designed by other companies in to it and then add their own fascist operating system to ensure complete compliance with their vision.
Apple didn't change the phone business?
Apple brought computers to the phone business and computers were a business Apple was already in and already understood very well. Phones are basically computers and Apple brought this fact front and center. Despite the fact that they are increasingly digital, automobiles are not computers and there is a vast amount of engineering expertise in them that is WAY outside Apple's wheelhouse. (suspensions, motors, etc) I suppose nothing is impossible but I really can't see Apple getting into the car business if for no other reason than profit margin. The most profitable auto manufacturers have net margins around 8-10%. Apple's net margins are north of 25%. If Tim Cook got into a low margin business like cars he'd be out of his job probably faster than you could say "shareholder lawsuit".
It's obviously anecdotal, and I can't even provide a citation, but I sure remember reading people say they did exactly this... I thought it was even here on Slashdot. Bought a MacBook, wiped it, and ran only Windows on it.
That's pretty much the definition of the exception that proves the rule. If Apple were dumb enough to sell Macs with Windows, there would be essentially zero reason to buy a Mac. A Mac is OS X. Apple is fundamentally a software company that sells their software in some custom hardware.
Apple went from a computer company to a mobile phone company and media company.
Apple went from a computer focused consumer electronics company to a more general consumer electronics company. Phones, tablets, MP3 players, digital music and personal computers are all just different forms of consumer electronics. Apple's real expertise is in the software that goes into these devices. Love them or hate them, their software is what keeps people buying from Apple as opposed to Dell or Sony. It's what really differentiates their products.
The problem Apple (and Google) are running into is the law of big numbers. For Apple to grow by around 8% next year they will have to create enough new revenue equal to a company the size of eBay. That is hard to do and the number of products they can make or buy that will move the needle that much is pretty small. Even if they were to buy Telsa, Tesla's revenues are a rounding error to Apple (about $2 billion with basically zero profit versus $170 billion with $37 billion in profit) even if you ignore the fact that Tesla's stock is absurdly overpriced right now. Buying Tesla even for a fair price does not appear to make any financial or strategic sense for either company.
Google is also into a lot of markets now as well.
Google dabbles in a lot of stuff but their business is advertising and that accounts for virtually all their revenue. Almost all these other things they dabble in are to support the advertising engine. Google built Android as a defensive play so that they wouldn't be beholden to Apple or Microsoft or Nokia or Samsung for advertising revenue. Google does not and probably never will make a lot of money on Android directly. Google got into maps and email and most of the other things they are dealing with to keep their lead in information so that they would be the go to source for search and thus advertising. They're putting money into some stuff that is speculative like robots and self driving cars but these do not appear to be serious efforts at diversification. If Google wants to diversify away from advertising they haven't done anything yet that will substantially accomplish that.
GE was a company that made electrical products to one that makes just about everything including jet engines.
GE is a conglomerate. There are very very few successful big conglomerates. I can only think of a few off hand worthy of the name. (GE, Berkshire Hathaway, Siemens, Tyco, and a few others) It's obscenely difficult to manage companies that are in wildly different industries. However, GE is really in just a few businesses when you look at them big picture. Manufacturing, financial products, infrastructure and consumer products. Most of what they do falls under one of those headings. If it doesn't or if they aren't the market leader, they sell the business to someone else. It's not easy to successfully turn a company that isn't a conglomerate into one that is. The management skill sets required are very different. Just because you are good ad managing a tech company doesn't mean you will be any good at finance or auto manufacturing.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler where all very diversified at one point.
And now they are not. What does that tell you? They tried to be diversified back in the middle of the 20th century when conglomerates were kind of the in thing to do. This eventually proved to be a bad idea for most companies that tried. Diversification is a two edged sword and while it might protect against industry specific cycles, it doesn't (usuallly) protect against macroeconomic cycles. Furthermore diversification often has the effect of distracting management. Most successful conglomerates (like GE or Berkshire Hathaway) basically run the businesses they own as standalone businesses and focus on capital allocation.
Both Tesla and Apple make extensive use of lithium ion batteries. The most logical scenario would be for the two companies to discuss a joint effort to enter into an R&D contract to develop longer-lived batteries and a quicker charging mechanism. Apple's problem is that their equipment burns through batteries quickly, while Tesla's vehicles are limited by the range of the batteries. Both have significant need for longer lived batteries and so it would make sense that they might enter into a joint venture to produce longer lasting, higher capacity batteries without adding weight to the end product.