![Transportation Transportation](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/transportation_64.png)
![Apple Apple](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/apple_64.png)
Elon Musk Talks Tesla, Apple, Model X 99
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.'"
Re: Truly (Score:4, Insightful)
It still takes someone with both skills and leadership to run a company properly.
If you were on a boat, would you advocate throwing the captan overboard (assuming he wasn't bad) so that you and your shipmates can run things? Try it, and see how far you get before the next alpha male jockeys for power and control.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that what one ought to imagine here is something like a smith who doesn't own his tools, but has access to tools which he does not control, with his tool access and the tool access of many other smiths entirely at the mercy of some large tool-owner.
Re: (Score:2)
A captain rarely owns the ship he captains though.
This depends greatly on the size of the boat.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that what one ought to imagine here is something like a smith who doesn't own his tools, but has access to tools which he does not control
That's a terrible analogy. Like a programmer, a smith can make his own tools. A carpenter would have been a far better analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All a smith needs is coal, steel or iron, wind, and water. The only tool he would have a hard time building himself would be the anvil, those are usually cast. The forge isn't all that hard to construct (maybe the fan or bellows) and all the other tools are trivial to make.
The only real cost is steel and fuel unless you have your own mine.
I took a blacksmithing workshop in college and one of the things the 74 year old instructor stressed most was that a blacksmith who doesn't make his own tools isn't much o
Re: (Score:1)
You are missing the point entirely, and it's a testament to the critical analysis skills of modern /. that you've been modded up
The captain is a competent worker who is perfectly entitled to a slice of the ship, but he rarely has one. Socialism (meant in the original sense, not the corrupted Fox sense) would give an ownership interest to the captain and to all the sailors.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Because in the end most humans are still greedy chimps at the core. Give us power and we will abuse it, and we will do anything we can to not share it. It's just human nature.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Because in the end most humans are still greedy chimps at the core. Give us power and we will abuse it, and we will do anything we can to not share it. It's just human nature.
Quite true, but shaking up the foundations by having the less well off chimps feed on the corpses of the well to do chimps is good for a stagnant society.
Ultimately centralised power leads to abuse, decentralised power leads to anarchy which results in just as much abuse, just focused at the local level which leaves people wishing to centralise power.
Re: (Score:2)
Educate the chimps, then you can distribute the burden of making decisions. That's why democracy with education on the back of reasoned thinking and questioning, defending free speech, and all that, are needed, so that most people can make a useful contribution to making things work. You could be the most benevolent dictator but simply not have the mind capacity to organise a large nation. It isn't about power for the sake of power and greed. If it was that, who cares if one chimp wins over the rest? Revolt
Re: Truly (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? REALLY? First, I would hardly call Elon Musk an 'idle parasite'. Second, have you actually worked with the average American worker? You highly exaggerate the capability of the common man, while underestimating the importance of vision and leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the short work week in France and long siesta in Spain is doing wonders for their respective economies. Furthermore, the majority of Americans don't work as hard as everyone seems to believe. You don't know what being overworked is until you've been anywhere in Asia; they just don't complain about it like Americans do.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the short work week in France and long siesta in Spain is doing wonders for their respective economies. Furthermore, the majority of Americans don't work as hard as everyone seems to believe. You don't know what being overworked is until you've been anywhere in Asia; they just don't complain about it like Americans do.
There are different kinds of hard work. Germany is doing well, despite the massive amounts of holiday time they get. Canada's doing pretty well despite the significant number of crown corporations (read: socialized infrastructure). Farmers in the US work hard, but are being edged out. Many in the IT industry in the US are working 60-80hr work weeks (as are many CEOs and other C level employees). When you get beyond that point, you have to make up the losses in quality with quantity of workers -- which
Re:Truly (Score:5, Informative)
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?
They did, in my country. And our destiny as a nation became tied to the whims of a handful of super-powerful idle parasites.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do Tesla cars actually have a digital vroom vroom? Because they sure don't have a mechanical one.
And as for the digital crap: Tesla cars are already fully digital, with OTA firmware updates. They also fully track where you go and what you do (to Tesla, not the car owner), as some of the early /. articles on the Model-S pointed out while attempting to prove another point.
So do you want Apple's closed source spying on you, or Musk's closed source? Or some open source, for that matter...?
Look at what Tesla
Re: (Score:3)
It's more likely that if Apple was going to design a car, they would get just get Tesla to build it for them.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If Apple starts putting cars on the roads, I'll get out of them. I'll take my chances with the subway.
Re: (Score:1)
Why, because they'd do a worse job than most of the rusted out shitboxes that currently travel the highways?
Or are we in Slashdot Libertarian Fantasy Land where safety regulations no longer exist?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I would bet that Tesla is looking to sell their cars in Apple stores, much like Nest did with their fancy thermostats. Apple has the infrastructure in place to get broad coverage to the right demographic for Tesla.
This would really make sense with Tesla's stated expansion into selling in China. it could also provide a non-direct-sales/dealership-network like the old school car makers are suing Tesla to adopt.
I'm guessing if it happens, there'll also be an ipad replacing the regular big display in the center
Well ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Electric cars are not yet a mature product. Just as computers weren't back in the early 1980s, when they either cost a fortune and didn't do much, or cost less and did much less. Electric cars are at that stage now, but whereas some people will be content to sit back and wait for it to mature, then jump on the bandwagon, others will be in the right place at the right time with the money and the vision to be the one to take it from expensive luxury that doesn't do much (in this case, range) to a mature product.
Unlike personal computing, cell phones or flat panel televisions, electric cars are not a new technology. They have been around in one form or another, since the 1880s [wikipedia.org]. Vehicle body construction and electric motor design are both very well understood disciplines, as most advances in these areas had significant applications outside their use in electric cars.
The technological limitation that's holding back electric cars has always been a lack of energy density in the batteries. Fixing that would be a holy
Re:Dissimilar markets (Score:4, Informative)
They're buying off-the-shelf batteries from the same suppliers that build batteries for the rest of the portable electronics industry. Since batteries are a resource intensive product (they're made from commodity materials that must be mined and processed), there is always going to be a fixed cost associated with their production. Here's a free hint: more electric cars being sold will only put more demand on battery manufacturers, and I don't have to explain how supply and demand works.
You are dead-on with with the reflection on the maturity of electric vehicles. They've been around a LONG time.
But regarding battery manufacturing, you may have missed the recent news about Tesla's plans for building the world's largest battery factory this year - it seems that Musk has anticipated your concern:
http://gigaom.com/2014/02/19/t... [gigaom.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Also that the resources required to build batteries are hardly fully developed. You can build a new mine and plan for the price of the commodity to drop if you expect to make it up in volume - to date though, that hasn't really been true of the battery market.
Re:Dissimilar markets (Score:4, Informative)
Unlike personal computing, cell phones or flat panel televisions, electric cars are not a new technology. They have been around in one form or another, since the 1880s. (...) The technological limitation that's holding back electric cars has always been a lack of energy density in the batteries.
Sure, but the power grid was extremely different back then. If you had it - which by far most didn't - it was barely good enough to power light bulbs, not cars. Sure you could wire up a bunch of car batteries, drive it a little while but then it'd take a month to recharge. Between stoves, refridgerators, dish washers, washing machines, computers, TVs, power tools and whatnot it's only recently come to a point where in-home charging of a car is feasible. Even now they're suffering from growth pains just like the Internet adapted to Napster and YouTube, but they will pass. The other things is that there was no public charging grid, even if you got yourself an industrial size electric connection at home you'd be stuck in your little range circle. And unlike at home were you can reasonably be expected to let it charge overnight, on the road chargers must be much faster and stronger.
Tesla's superchargers do 120 kW/car (here in Norway, I understand slightly lower in the US at the moment) and by their nature you want them in the middle of "nowhere" between cities. I don't know their total capacity - probably some oversubscription - but again I think it's something that only in very recent times has become feasible. Not to mention the rapid charging technology itself is very much state of the art. In short, even if we can't make miracles on density we are making huge advances in distribution and delivery. And as EVs become more popular, the grid will become more fine masked.
I think there's really four ranges to an EV:
1. Round-trip range - just charge at home, drive around and plug in when you get back home. No fuss, can use any parking spot.
2. One-way range - if you have a charger at the office or cabin or shopping center parking lot or whereever you're going.
3. Range with charging(s) - hopefully not too many snack breaks.
4. You just can't do it. Go rent an ICE.
If you break it down to percentages, most people's commutes and general shopping are in the first one. I know the Tesla has pushed interest in getting more power to cabins - not the "deep in the forest/mountains" cabin but the beachhouse and alpine skiing cabin that are in populated areas with a decent power grid. The third one is the one with most advances, it's not pretty or easy but you can do it the 1% of the time you need to. Really, if you can get rid of #4 and fulfill the 90%+ of driving inside #1 it's a winner. And they are making a lot of progress on shifting #4 into #3 through chargers, I mean it wouldn't be my first choice but that you can drive a Tesla coast to coast means you don't have to get an ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
Electric cars are not yet a mature product.
Unlike personal computing, cell phones or flat panel televisions, electric cars are not a new technology. They have been around in one form or another, since the 1880s.
Yes, and they have been a niche technology since ICEs won out in the early 1900s, and that's why they're not as mature.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a free hint: more electric cars being sold will only put more demand on battery manufacturers, and I don't have to explain how supply and demand works.
No need to explain. We get it: larger demand will lead to economies of scale and mass production so prices will drop massively, like they've done for solar cells.
Thanks for reminding us of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that even the smallest electric cars already have a range WAY over the average commute.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not buying off-the shelf batteries. They use an off-the-shelf form factor but that's about it. They use their own chemistry which is different than all of the other electric vehicles in that it has significantly higher energy density and a lower cost. Even the 16550 cells they use are customized in a number of ways to reduce cost. Panasonic is manufacturing the cells, but the IP is owned by Tesla and they can just as easily go to other manufacturers.
As for battery cost, they gain due to economies o
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Although there is a difference between a product warning you to pull over and get out versus just exploding on your lap.
Re: (Score:1)
Although there is a difference between a product warning you to pull over and get out versus just exploding on your lap.
Maybe they're just saving fire warnings for iOS 8.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy an iphone at walmart [walmart.com] but they are pricey compared to an android.
The thing I found amusing was it sounded like Musk was denying he intended to buy out Apple. {I would have expected that to go the other way}
Musk framed an acquisition as 'very unlikely,' mostly because it would distract Tesla from its goal of building an affordable electric car
Integration is in progress now (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Apple has a very big interest in the auto market. they've been trying to push IOS onto in car entertainment systems for well over a year now. However the new systems seem to be floundering with consumers who find them annoying and counter-intuitive.
There is no reason Musk should sell Tesla to Apple though. Apple would just sink it, there's too much competition for Apple to survive with every man and his dog now releasing hybrids and full blown EV's. Tesla needs to remain at the forefront of EV tech to r
Re: (Score:2)
He never said that. He was referring to the various touch-screen interfaces found in many cars today, such as MyFordTouch/MyLinconTouch, BMW's iDrive, etc. These systems are terrible as they're buggy and don't have any tactile feedback (unless they have knobs for the commonly-used functions; some systems do this, some don't). iOS systems wouldn't be any different; they'd just be a different OS underneath, but the UI problems would all remain.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. If there's no tactile feedback. the UI is going to be poor in a car. How do you turn the turn down the volume or adjust the temperature on a touchscreen without looking at it? You don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it would go anywhere with Apple. Tesla uses embedded Linux with the Qt toolkit for their touch screen, which is quite fast and responsive using an nVidia Tegra 3 processor. The touch screen has been quite reliable in my experience with it over the past year and Qt was an excellent choice for them. They have an open-source OS and full source code over all of their libraries. Tesla has shown that they're not afraid to write their own software, after all they wrote their own :a href="http://it.slashdot
Why HDMI and not wireless? (Score:3)
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 rega
Re: (Score:1)
Can't wait for the iTesla (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just awesome. Robin Williams, is that you?
Dealerships (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope not. Any such deal would require Tesla to implement iPod support in their cars, which I definitely don't want. There are open standards for that kind of thing, the last thing we need is a proprietary protocol and connector wasting space and precluding the inclusion of support for other devices (because Apple don't like compatible devices to be compatible with anything else).
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't most cars switched the bluetooth versus hardwired cabling connectors?
I've only used two rentals with bluetooth and music with my iphone was pretty seamless.
Re: (Score:2)
A wired connection is needed to browse the iTunes library on the iPod/iPhone, a feature Apple will insist on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seamless, so long as you only want to play the music actually stored on the phone.
If you want to stream music through Pandora, Spotify, etc using your phone and Blue Tooth it over the car speakers ... well good luck. I rent cars fairly frequently (about 2 weeks/month) and run about 50/50 chance of that actually working. I've switched back to using an aux cable the majority of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would be a good thing, really. Independent dealerships suck; they're called "stealerships" for a reason. They have a highly adversarial relationship with the manufacturers, and make a lot of money by screwing over customers with overpriced parts and repairs. If manufacturers sold directly to consumers, the prices would be lower (no middleman) and a lot of problems like unnecessary repairs would disappear, as a large corporation like Ford wouldn't want their reputation to be tainted that way. When
Re: (Score:2)
I think their idea of showrooms is actually better. The employees do not earn a commission and service is totally separate. They are there to show the car and answer questions. If you want to buy the car you go online (though in Texas they are not allowed to tell people this). Their stated goal for service is to not make a profit, which is the opposite of how most dealerships work.
I've walked into their showroom at a mall and the general public walks in to take a look and asks questions, something that you
hello every body (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Buy your iTesla today!
The way things are going, there might be a TeslaPad first.
I could see Apple or Google wanting Tesla (Score:2)
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".
Never will happen (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Getting into the auto business would be very foolish of them since they have no particular expertise to bring to the table there.
I entirely agree, but when has this stopped other companies from making foolish acquisitions?
Re: (Score:2)
I entirely agree, but when has this stopped other companies from making foolish acquisitions?
Neither Google nor Apple (especially Apple) has a history of making silly acquisitions. I'm not overly worried they are going to start now. Of the two, Google has made the riskier moves of the two so if either of them was going to buy something stupid I'd bet on Google to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple didn't change the phone business? The carriers (e.g. AT&T) used to say exactly what was on the phone and how the network was used. Now, at least to a large degree (of course there are still agreements and limitations), the maker of the phone itself says what's on the phone and all apps can use the network, etc.
Cars are not computers (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Exception that proves the rule (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple went from a computer company to a mobile phone company and media company. Google is also into a lot of markets now as well. It makes more sense than you might think. GE was a company that made electrical products to one that makes just about everything including jet engines. GM, Ford, and Chrysler where all very diversified at one point. The Redstone rocket that launched Alan Shepard was built by Chrysler, The engines that powered the P-38 lightning was made by GM and GM made jet engines, Ford Aerospa
Diversification isn't always a good idea (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Love them or hate them, their software is what keeps people buying from Apple as opposed to Dell or Sony.
Actually, the EULA for their software is what keeps people buying from Apple. If they sold their OS for use on commodity hardware instead of tying it to Apple hardware, it would see a lot more market share.
Yes, affordable (Score:2)
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.
It's the batteries, stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
If nothing else, both companies desperately need better battery technology. Could be they were talking about swapping patents or joint R&D.
A buyout is unlikely... halfsies on battery plant? (Score:2)
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...