Elon Musk: “If you don’t make it at Tesla, you go work at Apple. I’m not kidding.”

Outspoken CEO calls Apple the "Tesla Graveyard," isn't a big fan of the Apple Watch

Read the whole story

 

[agrouf]

It's not about the engineers. If Apple wants to build a serious EV, it will have to invest some serious dollars in science. Tesla engineers are probably the best you can find but EV is not good enough to be used in large scale yet.

 

[RT81]

OrangeCream[/url]":6a5r9zve]

arcite[/url]":6a5r9zve]Not many corporate rivals poke Apple and live to tell about it.

That was definitely true of Jobs.

I did some math at some point regarding Apple's available cash, resources, and ability to support an EV. 10 supercharging stations cost $1m; 100 cost $1b. At 523 around the US they have spent about $5.23b to date.

Apple could easily erect 100 stations a month on their current sales and profits; they pull in approximately $10b profit a quarter, $3b a month. In a single year they would have over double the number of stations in service.

Likewise they could spin up a Gigafactory every quarter, too.

They routinely spend billions in manufacturing the iPhone, $9.4b last year and $12b this year. As exciting as Tesla is, it literally chump change compared to Apple, and I would never discount Apple if they want to target your market or your company.

Tesla pulled in $3.2b, spent $3.5b if I read their form correctly.

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

Exactly.

I like what Mr. Musk is trying to accomplish. We need more outspoken leaders on the planet trying to push technology to advanced humanity. However, there is no guarantee he'll actually accomplish anything.

Let's be realistic. He runs a small company that makes cars that most people in the United States, let alone the rest of the world, cannot afford. As much as he claims to be trying to push electric car tech forward, from my perspective he's an eccentric billionaire making toys for rich people. On top of that, he doesn't seem to be overly concerned about really beefing up the infrastructure needed to support mass production of those vehicles, let alone the issues faced by what would really be his core markets - socially-conscience, urban-dwelling people who don't have easy means to charge their car every evening (in other words, they don't own a home or have a garage to plug the thing into).

As much as Apple can be described as an expensive premium toy maker, they ARE trying to do things to better humanity. It's just that it's little things that people on a tech site probably don't care about. Using a watch to track your blood pressure and blood glucose isn't as glamorous as making electric sports cars and spaceships to take people to Mars. I'd argue, however, it has a much more realistic goal and has an immediate impact on quality of life.

If Apple is truly developing a car, they're going to be in it for the long haul. OrangeCream's vision of just how much Apple could develop the infrastructure to support their cars is a great point. Apple is so large and so cash-rich that it could practically corner the market and monopolize ANY consumer product if it wanted to risk the fallout and legal issues from doing so.

TLR version: we need BOTH types - the brash rebels pushing us forward and the large, more conservative groups with the time and money to actually make it work.

 

[nononsense]

The entire reason he started the company was to goad OTHER manufacturers into making electric cars. He wasn't originally intent on building a huge car company.

But then very few followed him, and the ones that did started too late or their attempts were somewhat lame.

This fits in with his challenging other car manufacturers (and now Apple) to put their money where there mouths are and start DOING something instead of just talking.

We hear about how all these companies are going to have fully electric vehicles to compete with Tesla, but they are all years off. And by the time they have a luxury vehicle to compete, he'll be coming out with the new, lower cost Tesla.

Maybe he likes to talk smack to make the competition actually compete.

Or, he may just be a jerk, but I actually doubt that.

edit: spelling

 

[dm00]

doalwa[/url]":2lh9ha9g]

Oochiwawa[/url]":2lh9ha9g]Successful, arrogant CEO slams company built by other successful, arrogant CEO.

It's just a shame that it's Cook at the helm. With Jobs still around, we could have had a nice 3rd grade slapfight.

I would have loved to witness Steve Jobs' reaction to those statements...this would have probably fueled his ego in such a way that he made triple-sure to kick Tesla's ass with whatever electric car Apple is supposedly developing right now.

With Tim Cook at the helm, though...he's probably shrugging those comments off and paying them no greater mind...don't know which attitude is better for an ambitious company such as Apple in the long run.

There's a part of me that thinks that it was Musk's goal... Goad the competition to respond, to fuel the drive for innovation with competition, both at the executive level and the worker bee level.

Isn't this that same Musk who released electric car patents, daring other companies to compete? Has Apple ever released a patent, willingly?

 

[LeTrax]

Cheesewhiz[/url]":sexxwekz]

Coriolanus[/url]":sexxwekz]Why are people so defensive over these comments (either on Apple's behalf or Elon's)? Major tech CEOs do this all the time. Tim Cook wasn't above bashing Google and Microsoft at Apple keynotes. Larry Page has done the same thing to Apple and Facebook. And Larry Ellison attacks everybody (too many instances to mention).

This is all routine jockeying and trashtalk among big corporations. People shouldn't read so much into it.

This.

About the only CEO comments I paid attention to recently were Tim Cook's on the Jobs movie. And that was mostly due to the fact I was interested in seeing the movie.

Was interested, until I saw the universal disdain by virtually everyone who actually knew and worked with Jobs: his wife, Woz, Ive, and Cook. And then heard about the petty, ignorant, d-bag comments by Sorkin. And then reading that the movie isn't all that interested in actual biography or the truth and despite that its being sold as the definitive biopic of Jobs.

That's Aaron Sorkin all over. The Social Network suffered from identical problems.

"Don't let the truth get in the way of a good yarn" is the yardstick by which he works, unfortunately.

 

[THavoc]

dm00[/url]":10g8est7]

doalwa[/url]":10g8est7]

Oochiwawa[/url]":10g8est7]Successful, arrogant CEO slams company built by other successful, arrogant CEO.

It's just a shame that it's Cook at the helm. With Jobs still around, we could have had a nice 3rd grade slapfight.

I would have loved to witness Steve Jobs' reaction to those statements...this would have probably fueled his ego in such a way that he made triple-sure to kick Tesla's ass with whatever electric car Apple is supposedly developing right now.

With Tim Cook at the helm, though...he's probably shrugging those comments off and paying them no greater mind...don't know which attitude is better for an ambitious company such as Apple in the long run.

There's a part of me that thinks that it was Musk's goal... Goad the competition to respond, to fuel the drive for innovation with competition, both at the executive level and the worker bee level.

Isn't this that same Musk who released electric car patents, daring other companies to compete? Has Apple ever released a patent, willingly?

I don't recall if he gave patents away or just allowed others to use them for free.

 

[dm00]

THavoc[/url]":27tl6vnc]

dm00[/url]":27tl6vnc]

doalwa[/url]":27tl6vnc]

Oochiwawa[/url]":27tl6vnc]Successful, arrogant CEO slams company built by other successful, arrogant CEO.

It's just a shame that it's Cook at the helm. With Jobs still around, we could have had a nice 3rd grade slapfight.

I would have loved to witness Steve Jobs' reaction to those statements...this would have probably fueled his ego in such a way that he made triple-sure to kick Tesla's ass with whatever electric car Apple is supposedly developing right now.

With Tim Cook at the helm, though...he's probably shrugging those comments off and paying them no greater mind...don't know which attitude is better for an ambitious company such as Apple in the long run.

There's a part of me that thinks that it was Musk's goal... Goad the competition to respond, to fuel the drive for innovation with competition, both at the executive level and the worker bee level.

Isn't this that same Musk who released electric car patents, daring other companies to compete? Has Apple ever released a patent, willingly?

I don't recall if he gave patents away or just allowed others to use them for free.

...and Apple sues other phone makers about "rounded corners"... I hope you took the point of my statement.

 

[JButler]

Haha, only a few people can throw a jab at Apple like that and Elon is one of them.

Apple better make this new car venture a success real fast because, without new big hits, they are in for a world of pain in coming years.

 

[THavoc]

dm00[/url]":2ylfkeuc]
...and Apple sues other phone makers about "rounded corners"... I hope you took the point of my statement.

The ONLY point I was making was I was unsure if he gave them away or just allowed other to use them for free.

 

[solomonrex]

Musk=(Tony Stark)+(Steve Jobs)+(George Steinbrenner)?

I love a good business troll. Mark Cuban at Dairy Queen comes to mind.

 

[allgood2386]

Gary Patterson[/url]":1yvfx5u0]The tech industry is littered with companies that wrote Apple off before they saw the first release. Some are mere shadows of their formers selves (Blackberry, Nokia) and others missed key markets and later scrambled to catch up (Microsoft).

While I don't think Apple will have it easy with any car initiative they have (if they even get a product to market), I'd be cautious about snide talk.

Besides which, the car industry is easily big enough for a large number of competitors. Why would Musk respond like this to news of a new one? It certainly elevates Apple's profile in this space.

I don't think Musk cares in the least bit. His m.o. isn't selling cars, it's saving the planet and space colonization before we need it (and it will be too late). The latter aside and being insanely ambitious, he's already released all the patents to the public. If telsa went bankrupt because some other company took his designs and changed the world I think he'd be 100% ok with that result.

He almost sounds like he's goading Apple into making one. Go ahead, you know you can't do it as well as we are

 

[managalar]

As a consumer, prideful competition between Tesla and Apple might give me more options at a competitive price (comedy is a bonus).

 

[Deleted member 174040]

LeTrax[/url]":1u4jx49j]
"Don't let the truth get in the way of a good yarn" is the yardstick by which he works, unfortunately.

Make a biography (i.e. tell the truth) and watch your potential audience shrink by 90%.

 

[Cheesewhiz]

RockDaMan[/url]":1q8c9oud]

Cheesewhiz[/url]":1q8c9oud]
Was interested, until I saw the universal disdain by virtually everyone who actually knew and worked with Jobs: his wife, Woz, Ive, and Cook.

I still look forward to seeing it. It's not a biography, I know that going in, but many reviewers say that it's well-acted and a great film.

I can always read the book if I'm interested in a true to life biographical view of his life.

Yes, that's the thing, its supposed to be a fine film. But it appears to be an entertaining piece of fiction masquerading as fact.

So you and I might know that its not true to life. But the average person who sees it will likely think it is, and form their opinions of Jobs based on the movie.

And even that alone might not have stopped me from seeing it. But Sorkin's comments made me completely uninterested in giving him or Universal one penny. Sorkin just comes across as a childish loudmouthed New Yorker that should learn when to stfu. More's the pity, because the subject matter is interesting to me and I like all of the actors involved.

On a semi-related note, The Social Network was considered a great movie but I have not seen that either. Was completely put off by the ridiculous hype and I can't stand Eisenberg.

 

[bettercitizens]

Absurd bolder dash! What metric is Mr. Musk applying in his statement about "not cutting it". In what engineering, science or math discipline - all? This seems hyperbolic and plainly incredible!

 

[Deleted member 174040]

Cheesewhiz[/url]":2s16m386]

Yes, that's the thing, its supposed to be a fine film. But it appears to be an entertaining piece of fiction masquerading as fact.

So you and I might know that its not true to life. But the average person who sees it will likely think it is, and form their opinions of Jobs based on the movie.

Even if that were the case, it would be to what negative end?

It's supposed to entertain, not educate.

 

[HotelQuebec]

Apple's announcement that they're poaching Tesla workers put Tesla in a negative light. If Apple hadn't done that then Tesla wouldn't need to respond. Can't blame Musk for stating facts.

 

[Metaluna]

Sifaka[/url]":1tl6bb71]I take this as a sign of fear at Tesla of the Apple Car program. I did not give Apple much of a chance in this market, but now I am curious.

I don't think there's any need to read that much into this. Whether Apple is hiring them to build a car, or go lay on the beach all day doesn't necessarily matter. From Musk's point of view, he's lost employees that have a set of specialized and hard to replace skills, and that is making his job harder. Having worked at a few smallish companies with CEOs that were personally, emotionally invested in the business, it's not surprising at all to me that he might feel annoyed or even a little betrayed.

 

[agrouf]

OrangeCream[/url]":q16fw1v4]

arcite[/url]":q16fw1v4]Not many corporate rivals poke Apple and live to tell about it.

That was definitely true of Jobs.

I did some math at some point regarding Apple's available cash, resources, and ability to support an EV. 10 supercharging stations cost $1m; 100 cost $1b. At 523 around the US they have spent about $5.23b to date.

Apple could easily erect 100 stations a month on their current sales and profits; they pull in approximately $10b profit a quarter, $3b a month. In a single year they would have over double the number of stations in service.

Likewise they could spin up a Gigafactory every quarter, too.

They routinely spend billions in manufacturing the iPhone, $9.4b last year and $12b this year. As exciting as Tesla is, it literally chump change compared to Apple, and I would never discount Apple if they want to target your market or your company.

Tesla pulled in $3.2b, spent $3.5b if I read their form correctly.

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

FIAT had a revenue of $96b in 2014. Volkswagen had $202b in 2014 and Toyota had $188b, Apple $182b. FIAT had 30 times Tesla's revenue.

 

[tonytroubleshoot]

I cant believe Steve Jobs is compared to Musk..


Steve designed a nice phone.. a very very nice phone.

Musk has SpaceX, SolarCity, and Telsa cars and batteries. Soon the Gigafactory will be complete and the cheaper Telsa 3 or Y will start to roll in.. few years give or take.. there will be plenty of super charges and ways to charge from home.. no more gas stations, mechanics fucking you, or dealers selling you shit loophole warranties... oh and that emission shit too, gone. The electric Grid is already laid out. and when Elon figures out a transmission(2-speed even would be a amazing from my understanding.) yeah take that tranny out of that ICE and see how it competes to the Tesla..

now about that iphone ?

and I didnt even talk about his Space X initiatives, reusable rockets that land the same way they took off... fucking nuts man... fucking nuts....

 

[SgtCupCake]

snowshovel[/url]":3u9bz7f3]

OrangeCream[/url]":3u9bz7f3]

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

If Apple, with all of their vast amounts of cash and resources, can't figure out how justify setting the price for a basic smartwatch under $200, or a stylus at under $99, there's no way they are going to figure out how sell an EV for $32k.

I'm not saying that they actually couldn't...just that at whatever value they perceive their brand to be and what they can get away with adding to the price, they aren't going to price their product at the cost of an average new car that comes with limited bells and whistles.

Only luxury cars can get away with a 30% markup. I doubt Apple's business model of price gouging their devoted followers will work well in the auto industry. Not enough millionaires to go around.....

 

[OrangeCream]

agrouf[/url]":2sxo4tm6]It's not about the engineers. If Apple wants to build a serious EV, it will have to invest some serious dollars in science. Tesla engineers are probably the best you can find but EV is not good enough to be used in large scale yet.

Apple investing in battery development, deep learning and augmented reality, and terraced batteries.

Everyone seems to miss the big implication of terraced batteries; Apple can make irregularly shaped battery cells, and on a massive scale.

Tesla uses NCR18650 cells in their battery. Being a cylinder means there is some waste due to air spaces, approximately 21% of the volume. Imagine now a long, flat, L shaped batteries where you can run bundles of wires and coolant between the batteries. Where Tesla would fit in 5 cells, Apple could fit in 6, plus pack in channels where cabling and coolant fits.

Or Apple could take the same process and make their batteries 20% smaller as well as lighter since the pouch type sells are lighter.

 

[OrangeCream]

SgtCupCake[/url]":1t66b7wc]

snowshovel[/url]":1t66b7wc]

OrangeCream[/url]":1t66b7wc]

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

If Apple, with all of their vast amounts of cash and resources, can't figure out how justify setting the price for a basic smartwatch under $200, or a stylus at under $99, there's no way they are going to figure out how sell an EV for $32k.

I'm not saying that they actually couldn't...just that at whatever value they perceive their brand to be and what they can get away with adding to the price, they aren't going to price their product at the cost of an average new car that comes with limited bells and whistles.

Only luxury cars can get away with a 30% markup. I doubt Apple's business model of price gouging their devoted followers will work well in the auto industry. Not enough millionaires to go around.....

You don't need to be a millionaire to buy a $70k car.

 

[THavoc]

SgtCupCake[/url]":qlj5bura]

snowshovel[/url]":qlj5bura]

OrangeCream[/url]":qlj5bura]

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

If Apple, with all of their vast amounts of cash and resources, can't figure out how justify setting the price for a basic smartwatch under $200, or a stylus at under $99, there's no way they are going to figure out how sell an EV for $32k.

I'm not saying that they actually couldn't...just that at whatever value they perceive their brand to be and what they can get away with adding to the price, they aren't going to price their product at the cost of an average new car that comes with limited bells and whistles.

Only luxury cars can get away with a 30% markup. I doubt Apple's business model of price gouging their devoted followers will work well in the auto industry. Not enough millionaires to go around.....

If their cars have a significant decrease in maintenance, I could see more 'average' people getting them.

 

[Cheesewhiz]

Satay08[/url]":qkwqqnns]

P.Nilsson[/url]":qkwqqnns]I don't understand the need for a four page discussion. One word that Musk has to say weights more than a thousand bitter excuses from offended devotees on the Ars forums.

So true. Elon Musk is worthy of admiration:

Paypal
Tesla
SpaceX
SolarCity
Hyperloop

Tim Cook is just steering the ship that Steve Jobs built, they are releasing the same phone every year, with minor improvements.

I agree that Musk has some major accomplishments.

But you really need to pare that list because I don't think it accomplishes the goal you think.

SpaceX, sure its big, but living off of government money.

Solarcity, that's Elon's cousin's company. Musk is a big shareholder and is on the board, but he didn't build the company. That's like claiming Disney on Steve Jobs resume since he was one of the largest shareholders.

Hyperloop? It's vaporware. At this point it only exists in pictures and computer simulations.

I'll give you Paypal and Tesla. But when you list those other things, it just makes me question what Musk's actual involvement and success was with Paypal and Tesla. And having looked at Paypal's history, maybe remove Paypal too. He didn't invent Paypal (other than the name) and was fired, which I didn't know.

So you have Tesla, SpaceX and going back, Zip2.

Impressive enough, and I don't think its really necessary to embellish.

 

[greatn]

solomonrex[/url]":1ygio1wa]Musk=(Tony Stark)+(Steve Jobs)+(George Steinbrenner)?

I love a good business troll. Mark Cuban at Dairy Queen comes to mind.

I think Musk is Lex Luthor.

Hear me out.

Luthor(or at least one of the many, many versions of him over the years) was a guy who believed himself to be mankind's savior and devoted all of his business and resources to improving humanity, renewable energy, amazing technology, great homes, philanthropy, etc. He only turned evil after Superman showed up because here was this alien doing all this altruism that humanity should be doing itself, and here Luthor was no longer humanity's savior, instead they preferred some outsider, and Luthor was seethingly jealous and wanted to expose the kryptonian as a fraud and destroy him by any means necessary so humanity could stand on its own, with Luthor as their hero.

So I don't think Musk will go evil because the possibility of a benevolent superpowered alien orphan coming around and stealing his thunder are relatively low.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

OrangeCream[/url]":1s1y15lw]

agrouf[/url]":1s1y15lw]It's not about the engineers. If Apple wants to build a serious EV, it will have to invest some serious dollars in science. Tesla engineers are probably the best you can find but EV is not good enough to be used in large scale yet.

Apple investing in battery development, deep learning and augmented reality, and terraced batteries.

Everyone seems to miss the big implication of terraced batteries; Apple can make irregularly shaped battery cells, and on a massive scale.

Tesla uses NCR18650 cells in their battery. Being a cylinder means there is some waste due to air spaces, approximately 21% of the volume. Imagine now a long, flat, L shaped batteries where you can run bundles of wires and coolant between the batteries. Where Tesla would fit in 5 cells, Apple could fit in 6, plus pack in channels where cabling and coolant fits.

Or Apple could take the same process and make their batteries 20% smaller as well as lighter since the pouch type sells are lighter.

I imagine others can manage to make cellphone-shaped batteries.

 

[David Weeks]

1) I'm an Apple fanboy.

2) I have a Tesla Model S.

Comments...

1) Tesla has big margins on the Model S, and is plowing that profit into cap ex for growth. New paint shop, production lines, etc. If they did not want to reinvest their profits, they could actually show a bottom line profit.

The current line is subsidizing the growth and development needed to successfully make smaller cheaper cars with lower margin. If Tesla had gone for a 35K car off the bat, they never would have made it on low-margin sales while having to spool up a growing car company.

2) It's all about the batteries. No matter how good your design is, if you can't get the batteries, you don't have a car to sell. Tesla is going to have the Gigafactory all to itself, and they are buying up rights to loads of lithium mining production. Where is Apple going to get the lithium and the assembled batteries?

The Model S 85 has an EPA range around 265, and some S options provide more. The X is around 240. Much more range than ANY other EV. If Apple wants to compete with Volt/Leaf/i3, the battery problem is easier to sol e as those cars don't have much battery capacity.

 

[agrouf]

OrangeCream[/url]":2xl92w5f]

SgtCupCake[/url]":2xl92w5f]

snowshovel[/url]":2xl92w5f]

OrangeCream[/url]":2xl92w5f]

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

If Apple, with all of their vast amounts of cash and resources, can't figure out how justify setting the price for a basic smartwatch under $200, or a stylus at under $99, there's no way they are going to figure out how sell an EV for $32k.

I'm not saying that they actually couldn't...just that at whatever value they perceive their brand to be and what they can get away with adding to the price, they aren't going to price their product at the cost of an average new car that comes with limited bells and whistles.

Only luxury cars can get away with a 30% markup. I doubt Apple's business model of price gouging their devoted followers will work well in the auto industry. Not enough millionaires to go around.....

You don't need to be a millionaire to buy a $70k car.

Sure but if you aren't a millionaire you will think hard, very hard before you buy a $70k car. You won't buy it only for the prestige. You will have to think if you prefer having a bigger house, a new swimming pool or an expensive car. There is no carrier subsidizing the car. You pay it the full price. You may find some state subsidies here and there but that will never make the car seem to cost 10% of what it really cost. Cars are very expensive, no way around it. That is why most people buy cheap cars and those who buy expensive cars think hard before they do, unless they are millionaires.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

PavJ[/url]":1o2htssm]

Oochiwawa[/url]":1o2htssm]Successful, arrogant CEO slams company built by other successful, arrogant CEO.

It's just a shame that it's Cook at the helm. With Jobs still around, we could have had a nice 3rd grade slapfight.

Did Jobs spend much energy on slap fighting? My impression was generally that he didn't say much, until he did and when he did it tended to be mercilessly shanking you in an alley. Sort of like his "note on Flash."

 

[Jeht]

Though I'm sure some of the workers who left were fired, and genuine Tesla "rejects", one has to consider that there are many reasons for leaving, and that the majority weren't likely in that bucket.

One reason is work life balance. Tesla is supposed to be really terrible in this regard. If there is an expectation to 70 hours a week, consider me a reject to this criteria.

Another is pay, as I recall reading articles stating that Apple was paying 50% more to jump ship, or something along those lines.

Other times, people move for geographic or family reasons, or are simply tired of the work they do.

Bosses don't want to validate the reasons why individuals leave, since that would encourage more employees to leave, in particular confident high performers. Instead, they sometimes make slights at people after they go, after trying hard to retain them behind closed doors. This is just an extreme, somewhat embarrassing example of this, spoken by a famous CEO about a brand people feel strongly about (either way).

 

[greatn]

David Weeks[/url]":1i028hpp]1) I'm an Apple fanboy.

2) I have a Tesla Model S.

Comments...

1) Tesla has big margins on the Model S, and is plowing that profit into cap ex for growth. New paint shop, production lines, etc. If they did not want to reinvest their profits, they could actually show a bottom line profit.

The current line is subsidizing the growth and development needed to successfully make smaller cheaper cars with lower margin. If Tesla had gone for a 35K car off the bat, they never would have made it on low-margin sales while having to spool up a growing car company.

2) It's all about the batteries. No matter how good your design is, if you can't get the batteries, you don't have a car to sell. Tesla is going to have the Gigafactory all to itself, and they are buying up rights to loads of lithium mining production. Where is Apple going to get the lithium and the assembled batteries?

The Model S 85 has an EPA range around 265, and some S options provide more. The X is around 240. Much more range than ANY other EV. If Apple wants to compete with Volt/Leaf/i3, the battery problem is easier to sol e as those cars don't have much battery capacity.

For number 2), Tim Cook's whole deal back at his executive days in IBM and prior to being CEO at Apple was resource procurement and investment in technologies they would need in the future but didn't need quite yet. I would not be at all surprised if they already had signficant investments in battery manufacturing and lithium interests.

 

[OrangeCream]

agrouf[/url]":3jk9xq0y]

OrangeCream[/url]":3jk9xq0y]

arcite[/url]":3jk9xq0y]Not many corporate rivals poke Apple and live to tell about it.

That was definitely true of Jobs.

I did some math at some point regarding Apple's available cash, resources, and ability to support an EV. 10 supercharging stations cost $1m; 100 cost $1b. At 523 around the US they have spent about $5.23b to date.

Apple could easily erect 100 stations a month on their current sales and profits; they pull in approximately $10b profit a quarter, $3b a month. In a single year they would have over double the number of stations in service.

Likewise they could spin up a Gigafactory every quarter, too.

They routinely spend billions in manufacturing the iPhone, $9.4b last year and $12b this year. As exciting as Tesla is, it literally chump change compared to Apple, and I would never discount Apple if they want to target your market or your company.

Tesla pulled in $3.2b, spent $3.5b if I read their form correctly.

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

FIAT had a revenue of $96b in 2014. Volkswagen had $202b in 2014 and Toyota had $188b, Apple $182b. FIAT had 30 times Tesla's revenue.

That's kind of a hollow comparison when cars cost more than phones, too.

Fiat's 2014 (USD) revenue was $116b, that I found; gross profit was $15b, operating income of $3b, and net income of only $690m.

Apple:
Revenue of $182b (so $66b more than FIAT)
Gross profit of $70b ($65b more than FIAT)
Operating income of $52b ($49b more than FIAT)
Net income of $39.5b (almost $39b more than FIAT)

Fiat's current market cap is only $20b right now. And it only costs a couple billion or so to spin up a factory in the US.

 

[OrangeCream]

Ostracus[/url]":7ryczww9]

OrangeCream[/url]":7ryczww9]

agrouf[/url]":7ryczww9]It's not about the engineers. If Apple wants to build a serious EV, it will have to invest some serious dollars in science. Tesla engineers are probably the best you can find but EV is not good enough to be used in large scale yet.

Apple investing in battery development, deep learning and augmented reality, and terraced batteries.

Everyone seems to miss the big implication of terraced batteries; Apple can make irregularly shaped battery cells, and on a massive scale.

Tesla uses NCR18650 cells in their battery. Being a cylinder means there is some waste due to air spaces, approximately 21% of the volume. Imagine now a long, flat, L shaped batteries where you can run bundles of wires and coolant between the batteries. Where Tesla would fit in 5 cells, Apple could fit in 6, plus pack in channels where cabling and coolant fits.

Or Apple could take the same process and make their batteries 20% smaller as well as lighter since the pouch type sells are lighter.

I imagine others can manage to make cellphone-shaped batteries.

Whoosh.

So, why is it that Tesla isn't, but Apple already is? Apple solved the problem for their needs in smartphones, tablets, and laptops... but it is also applicable for any place you value energy density.

 

[agrouf]

OrangeCream[/url]":131if01o]

agrouf[/url]":131if01o]

OrangeCream[/url]":131if01o]

arcite[/url]":131if01o]Not many corporate rivals poke Apple and live to tell about it.

That was definitely true of Jobs.

I did some math at some point regarding Apple's available cash, resources, and ability to support an EV. 10 supercharging stations cost $1m; 100 cost $1b. At 523 around the US they have spent about $5.23b to date.

Apple could easily erect 100 stations a month on their current sales and profits; they pull in approximately $10b profit a quarter, $3b a month. In a single year they would have over double the number of stations in service.

Likewise they could spin up a Gigafactory every quarter, too.

They routinely spend billions in manufacturing the iPhone, $9.4b last year and $12b this year. As exciting as Tesla is, it literally chump change compared to Apple, and I would never discount Apple if they want to target your market or your company.

Tesla pulled in $3.2b, spent $3.5b if I read their form correctly.

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

FIAT had a revenue of $96b in 2014. Volkswagen had $202b in 2014 and Toyota had $188b, Apple $182b. FIAT had 30 times Tesla's revenue.

That's kind of a hollow comparison when cars cost more than phones, too.

Fiat's 2014 (USD) revenue was $116b, that I found; gross profit was $15b, operating income of $3b, and net income of only $690m.

Apple:
Revenue of $182b (so $66b more than FIAT)
Gross profit of $70b ($65b more than FIAT)
Operating income of $52b ($49b more than FIAT)
Net income of $39.5b (almost $39b more than FIAT)

Fiat's current market cap is only $20b right now. And it only costs a couple billion or so to spin up a factory in the US.

Or you can look at it this way:
$116b - $15b = $101b
So it costs FIAT $101b to operate annually.
Apple's profit is $70b. So if Apple invest 100% of its profits, it will have about 70% of FIAT resources to make cars.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

Cheesewhiz[/url]":2pxs023z]

Satay08[/url]":2pxs023z]

P.Nilsson[/url]":2pxs023z]I don't understand the need for a four page discussion. One word that Musk has to say weights more than a thousand bitter excuses from offended devotees on the Ars forums.

So true. Elon Musk is worthy of admiration:

Paypal
Tesla
SpaceX
SolarCity
Hyperloop

Tim Cook is just steering the ship that Steve Jobs built, they are releasing the same phone every year, with minor improvements.

I agree that Musk has some major accomplishments.

But you really need to pare that list because I don't think it accomplishes the goal you think.

SpaceX, sure its big, but living off of government money.

Solarcity, that's Elon's cousin's company. Musk is a big shareholder and is on the board, but he didn't build the company. That's like claiming Disney on Steve Jobs resume since he was one of the largest shareholders.

Hyperloop? It's vaporware. At this point it only exists in pictures and computer simulations.

I'll give you Paypal and Tesla. But when you list those other things, it just makes me question what Musk's actual involvement and success was with Paypal and Tesla. And having looked at Paypal's history, maybe remove Paypal too. He didn't invent Paypal (other than the name) and was fired, which I didn't know.

So you have Tesla, SpaceX and going back, Zip2.

Impressive enough, and I don't think its really necessary to embellish.

Musk was/is far more involved in Solar City that you make it out to be. He didn't want to start a 3rd company, so he provided seed money to his cousins to execute his business plan. And he's not just on the board, he's the chairman and basically guides the company without the day to day responsibilities of being CEO. Hyperloop is, as you say, vaporware.

I've watched a lot of Musk interviews, and the one thing that I think a lot of people miss is that Musk (a lot like Steve Jobs, actually) Doesn't seem to be motivated by money at all. He seems motivated solely by his vision for the future. He is, I think, just a bit crazy, in a good way. The other thing about him is that unlike pretty much every other contemporary CEO he spends 75%+ of his time engineering and designing.

He's blunt. I would also point out that he didn't offer this unsolicited - it was in response to a pointed question.

Frankly Musk and Legere are my favorites for being no bullshit. Apple is so much less interesting without Jobs at the helm...

edited for grammar and spelling

 

[OrangeCream]

Um, you mean Apple has $39.5b (net income) to purchase FIAT, grab an additional $116b of revenue, and still have $40b next year to build a supercharger networker, spin up a battery plant, spin up a factory, etc.

 

[aexcorp]

OrangeCream[/url]":28y7zqwd]

agrouf[/url]":28y7zqwd]

OrangeCream[/url]":28y7zqwd]

arcite[/url]":28y7zqwd]Not many corporate rivals poke Apple and live to tell about it.

That was definitely true of Jobs.

I did some math at some point regarding Apple's available cash, resources, and ability to support an EV. 10 supercharging stations cost $1m; 100 cost $1b. At 523 around the US they have spent about $5.23b to date.

Apple could easily erect 100 stations a month on their current sales and profits; they pull in approximately $10b profit a quarter, $3b a month. In a single year they would have over double the number of stations in service.

Likewise they could spin up a Gigafactory every quarter, too.

They routinely spend billions in manufacturing the iPhone, $9.4b last year and $12b this year. As exciting as Tesla is, it literally chump change compared to Apple, and I would never discount Apple if they want to target your market or your company.

Tesla pulled in $3.2b, spent $3.5b if I read their form correctly.

Apple can afford to play both a short and long game; ultimately it boils down to this. If Fiat, one of the worst car makers in the world, can pull of an EV, and sell it for $32k, then I'm fairly sure Apple can too.

FIAT had a revenue of $96b in 2014. Volkswagen had $202b in 2014 and Toyota had $188b, Apple $182b. FIAT had 30 times Tesla's revenue.

That's kind of a hollow comparison when cars cost more than phones, too.

Fiat's 2014 (USD) revenue was $116b, that I found; gross profit was $15b, operating income of $3b, and net income of only $690m.

Apple:
Revenue of $182b (so $66b more than FIAT)
Gross profit of $70b ($65b more than FIAT)
Operating income of $52b ($49b more than FIAT)
Net income of $39.5b (almost $39b more than FIAT)

Fiat's current market cap is only $20b right now. And it only costs a couple billion or so to spin up a factory in the US.

That comparison alone should tell you volumes about why Apple should be very careful in entering the car business: margins are slim, especially compared with premium smartphones and tablets. Shareholders better be ready for some significant cash burn and a decline in average margins.

OrangeCream[/url]":28y7zqwd]

Ostracus[/url]":28y7zqwd]

OrangeCream[/url]":28y7zqwd]

agrouf[/url]":28y7zqwd]It's not about the engineers. If Apple wants to build a serious EV, it will have to invest some serious dollars in science. Tesla engineers are probably the best you can find but EV is not good enough to be used in large scale yet.

Apple investing in battery development, deep learning and augmented reality, and terraced batteries.

Everyone seems to miss the big implication of terraced batteries; Apple can make irregularly shaped battery cells, and on a massive scale.

Tesla uses NCR18650 cells in their battery. Being a cylinder means there is some waste due to air spaces, approximately 21% of the volume. Imagine now a long, flat, L shaped batteries where you can run bundles of wires and coolant between the batteries. Where Tesla would fit in 5 cells, Apple could fit in 6, plus pack in channels where cabling and coolant fits.

Or Apple could take the same process and make their batteries 20% smaller as well as lighter since the pouch type sells are lighter.

I imagine others can manage to make cellphone-shaped batteries.

Whoosh.

So, why is it that Tesla isn't, but Apple already is? Apple solved the problem for their needs in smartphones, tablets, and laptops... but it is also applicable for any place you value energy density.

Cost is a major factor here. When Apple is making ~30-40% margin on their products, they can afford to take a 3-5 percentage point cut to have a way cooler device that's thinner/shaped differently. This directly goes towards their competitive advantage and differentiating their products in the eyes of consumers.

When making an EV, where batteries account for the bulk of the vehicle's cost (unlike a phone), a small increase in cost bites directly in already slim margins. The best margins in the industry are Porsche's, and they are "merely" 18%. Porsche is the envy of the entire industry, and has a history of car-making and racing that Apple won't have.

 

[vartec]

joemonco[/url]":84fzk02z]

ilst[/url]":84fzk02z]

Kergonath[/url]":84fzk02z]

But cars are very complex compared to phones or smart watches. You can’t just go to a supplier like Foxconn and say: 'Build me a car.'

PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.

Every time I see this response I wonder if it's due to being blinded by rabid fanboy-ism.

Or if people writing these responses really don't recognize the magnitude of difference between building a different computing device (a PC vs a small embedded PC... i.e. a smartphone) and the magnitude of difference between building a computing device and a vehicle?

Because Elon Musk had tons of automative experience? You do realize that other car companies were just as dismissive of Tesla as Musk is being of Apple, right?

Actually you both have good points. OTOH, your argument is basically perfect example of survivorship bias. Just because Tesla succeeded, doesn't mean that it's easily repeatable. Thing is, if Apple doesn't pull it off, most likely we won't know, because they'll just quietly kill the project.

 

[azazel1024]

roxton[/url]":9s2xehha]Now I'm contemplating a world where Foxconn makes cars.
(Think of Manhattan, only 1/10th the size and the same number of people, except they all perform manual labor, and nobody gets paid enough to rent an apartment, so they're packed into company-owned warrens reminiscent of the railway coolie era.)
Thanks for the image, Elon.

Nah they'll use fully robotic factories instead of people when Apple rolls out it's iCar.