Apple will buy Tesla for $75b in 18 months(calacanis.com)
calacanis.com
Apple will buy Tesla for $75b in 18 months
http://calacanis.com/2015/02/14/apple-will-buy-tesla-for-75b-in-18-months/
21 comments
Ford explored fission reactors for cars in the 50s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
Oh, even fission:-)
May be we will see shoe box sized fission reactors, if Lockheed succeeds.
May be we will see shoe box sized fission reactors, if Lockheed succeeds.
Tesla already sells only a minority of their cars in California, so those certificates are not that much of a help. It's much more important, for example, that the Model S has a nice margin.
I hope not! We don't want crazy patent wars spilling in there too. So far Tesla were quite positive in avoiding that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/12...
If Apple buys them you can bet their crazy obsession with patents will poison Tesla as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/12...
If Apple buys them you can bet their crazy obsession with patents will poison Tesla as well.
If anyone buys Tesla it likely would be an established car company because Apple buying Tesla would not solve Tesla's second problem.
Their first problem is money. They don't have the money to ramp up their car building ability to support the III. They have delivery and market issues with just the S
Their second problem is, they don't have the supplier network large enough to support the III nor the expertise to get it out on time. Apple buying them won't fix that.
Apple's problem is that they are sitting on too much cash to make a good decision. There really isn't anyone worth buying, Tesla surely isn't.
I would have thought Apple would be better served by making self driving cars simple through software and hardware that goes into other manufacturers cars.
Their first problem is money. They don't have the money to ramp up their car building ability to support the III. They have delivery and market issues with just the S
Their second problem is, they don't have the supplier network large enough to support the III nor the expertise to get it out on time. Apple buying them won't fix that.
Apple's problem is that they are sitting on too much cash to make a good decision. There really isn't anyone worth buying, Tesla surely isn't.
I would have thought Apple would be better served by making self driving cars simple through software and hardware that goes into other manufacturers cars.
I tend to think that buying any of the big silicon fab companies would probably be in Apple's interests. They generate the kind of cash you need to be able to invest in the huge R&D costs needed to sustain Moore's Law, and they have clearly indicated that they want to keep their iOS SoCs at or very close to the leading edge of process technology, because it gives them a huge competitive advantage.
However, the problem there is that it means you really need to be buying Intel, TSMC or Samsung. Clearly Samsung is a non-starter, and TSMC seems to be fiercely independent, leaving Intel. I can't imagine a healthy world where Apple has bought Intel, so that seems to also not be an option (I can well imagine that regulatory authorities might want to block anyone from buying Intel).
Maybe they could use their piles of cash to build their own fabbing capabilities from the ground up, but that seems like it would be a very risky and very drawn out task.
So, yeah, not sure there isn't anyone worth buying, but they may not be able to actually buy the companies that would help them pull further ahead in owning their core technologies.
However, the problem there is that it means you really need to be buying Intel, TSMC or Samsung. Clearly Samsung is a non-starter, and TSMC seems to be fiercely independent, leaving Intel. I can't imagine a healthy world where Apple has bought Intel, so that seems to also not be an option (I can well imagine that regulatory authorities might want to block anyone from buying Intel).
Maybe they could use their piles of cash to build their own fabbing capabilities from the ground up, but that seems like it would be a very risky and very drawn out task.
So, yeah, not sure there isn't anyone worth buying, but they may not be able to actually buy the companies that would help them pull further ahead in owning their core technologies.
What about GlobalFoundries?
"Apple’s design team, software, and global distribution would actually LEVEL Tesla up."
"Software"... lately? No. Sorry. Don't agree on design either.
Thing is I'm not sure Elon wants to let go of Tesla. Tesla is on a roll right now and Elon strikes me as the kind of individual who would personally see that out, at least for the foreseeable future. He has visions of changing the world (and access to other worlds). He may take investments, but I don't think he's ready to see it sold outright.
"Software"... lately? No. Sorry. Don't agree on design either.
Thing is I'm not sure Elon wants to let go of Tesla. Tesla is on a roll right now and Elon strikes me as the kind of individual who would personally see that out, at least for the foreseeable future. He has visions of changing the world (and access to other worlds). He may take investments, but I don't think he's ready to see it sold outright.
While it's a fun idea, I'm skeptical (though it would be cool!)
I think it's far more likely that Apple ends up either designing a car for Tesla or, less-spectacularly, "powering" a car (which basically means expanding CarPlay to a bigger role than v1 will have on the dashboard.)
I still think it's ridiculous that car manufacturers essentially create their own OSs (yes, I know they get them from 3rd parties and some are QNX-powered, etc.) but in essence, every car has its own UI/UX, most of which are terrible.
CarPlay is step 1. I think the evolution of that is a car that's run entirely on OSX/iOS/CarOS -- with a real UI, good UX, and the joy of well-designed electronics. Modern-day cars are vastly more computer-controlled than they used to be, and it makes sense that Apple wants to be a part of that action.
I don't think we're going to see Apple The Car Manufacturer, but I do think we're going to see "Powered by Apple" soon.
I think it's far more likely that Apple ends up either designing a car for Tesla or, less-spectacularly, "powering" a car (which basically means expanding CarPlay to a bigger role than v1 will have on the dashboard.)
I still think it's ridiculous that car manufacturers essentially create their own OSs (yes, I know they get them from 3rd parties and some are QNX-powered, etc.) but in essence, every car has its own UI/UX, most of which are terrible.
CarPlay is step 1. I think the evolution of that is a car that's run entirely on OSX/iOS/CarOS -- with a real UI, good UX, and the joy of well-designed electronics. Modern-day cars are vastly more computer-controlled than they used to be, and it makes sense that Apple wants to be a part of that action.
I don't think we're going to see Apple The Car Manufacturer, but I do think we're going to see "Powered by Apple" soon.
I really like this idea. A range of cars from Tesla, deeply integrated into the Apple ecosystem, would seem like a pretty sweet place to be.
Apple can certainly solve Tesla's cash problem. Distribution probably takes care of itself when you put those two names together, in the sense that it's two exceptional brands that people will actively seek out, regardless of what their local dealers are trying to push.
Apple can certainly solve Tesla's cash problem. Distribution probably takes care of itself when you put those two names together, in the sense that it's two exceptional brands that people will actively seek out, regardless of what their local dealers are trying to push.
This has got to be the next 'Googlezon' (EPIC 2014), I've now seen 3 people suggest that Apple and Tesla merge/acquire (one of them had Tesla acquiring Apple)
I think Tesla is in for a world of hurt actually. Pretty much everyone "gets it" now, and there is at least 10x the capital engaged in creating Tesla competitive cars as there is at Tesla creating their own cars. That means 10x more success paths explored per unit time. That means 10x more noise in the market to obscure Tesla's message. That means 1/10th the "oxygen" left for anything else. The best thing Elon did was the "gigafactory" as it will have a lock on battery supply if none of these new battery technologies come to market. That provides a pretty good defense against the onslaught. But every car company is gunning for him. It's pretty impressive.
I think Tesla is in for a world of hurt actually. Pretty much everyone "gets it" now, and there is at least 10x the capital engaged in creating Tesla competitive cars as there is at Tesla creating their own cars. That means 10x more success paths explored per unit time. That means 10x more noise in the market to obscure Tesla's message. That means 1/10th the "oxygen" left for anything else. The best thing Elon did was the "gigafactory" as it will have a lock on battery supply if none of these new battery technologies come to market. That provides a pretty good defense against the onslaught. But every car company is gunning for him. It's pretty impressive.
There's only one company that's announced a long-range electric car other than Tesla - not much sign that everyone gets it! Awesome if that's really happening, but ... as an example, the only announced competitor is the Bolt, and there's no announcement for large-scale battery supply for it.
The main reason why it doesn't seem totally crazy is that Apple just has so much money and has been so successful in their current markets is that they're arguably going to have to do something radical at some point if they're going to continue to grow. It's unclear to me that an Apple Watch or TV-related tech of some sort is radical enough or big enough.
That said:
- Everything stephanfroede wrote about the challenges of the automobile market and the level of competition there.
- Modular auto displays/electronics are definitely somewhere Apple could play. But partnering is arguably the more profitable approach there. Look at Bose for example.
- The article makes the argument for totally self-driving cars arriving within just a few years. I don't see it. (Although the case does apply to some degree even if you have autonomous navigation on some freeways within an interesting time horizon.)
That said:
- Everything stephanfroede wrote about the challenges of the automobile market and the level of competition there.
- Modular auto displays/electronics are definitely somewhere Apple could play. But partnering is arguably the more profitable approach there. Look at Bose for example.
- The article makes the argument for totally self-driving cars arriving within just a few years. I don't see it. (Although the case does apply to some degree even if you have autonomous navigation on some freeways within an interesting time horizon.)
Apple buying tesla, makes increasingly more sense, if Apple really wants to get into cars. Electric cars is a whole different ballgame, and Tesla has shown that its possible to get apple like margins... Getting my popcorn ready and getting back into the Tesla stock..
Tesla doesn't have Apple like margins.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=TSLA&annual
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL&annual
(I'm comparing total revenue and cost of revenue)
They still have pretty good margin there, but Apple is quite a lot higher.
They are also pretty unlikely to hold onto the margin they have as they move into the broader market.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=TSLA&annual
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL&annual
(I'm comparing total revenue and cost of revenue)
They still have pretty good margin there, but Apple is quite a lot higher.
They are also pretty unlikely to hold onto the margin they have as they move into the broader market.
> Elon Musk as the CEO of Apple? Wow. Doubt he would want to do it, but I could see him being the Chairman — and that would be kind of special.
That's the ONLY reason why I would want Apple to buy Tesla - if Elon Musk can become its CEO let's say in 5-7 years. I can't even imagine what Elon Musk could do with Apple's money, but I'm pretty sure he'd at the very least take on fusion research, and other stuff that would accelerate the arrival of a new "space age".
Otherwise, Apple buying Tesla just as another profit-center and to make fanbois happy that they only have to buy their products religiously from a single company? Screw that.
Put Elon Musk on the schedule to become CEO and then we're talking.
That's the ONLY reason why I would want Apple to buy Tesla - if Elon Musk can become its CEO let's say in 5-7 years. I can't even imagine what Elon Musk could do with Apple's money, but I'm pretty sure he'd at the very least take on fusion research, and other stuff that would accelerate the arrival of a new "space age".
Otherwise, Apple buying Tesla just as another profit-center and to make fanbois happy that they only have to buy their products religiously from a single company? Screw that.
Put Elon Musk on the schedule to become CEO and then we're talking.
This post could do with the title being prepended with 'I think...'
Apple will NOT buy Tesla for $75B in 18 months - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9055177
Tesla's current market cap is $25b. Isn't $75b too much of a price premium?
To be fair though, Tesla's share price went up by 100% over the past 18 months, so a 200% increase over the next 18 month isn't unimaginable.
[0] http://www.google.ca/finance?cid=12607212
To be fair though, Tesla's share price went up by 100% over the past 18 months, so a 200% increase over the next 18 month isn't unimaginable.
[0] http://www.google.ca/finance?cid=12607212
I don't think Elon would want to sell Tesla since he can benefit in longterm as a supplier for batteries/EV tech?
>Google is another likely buyer, but Google can’t compete with Apple’s war chest?
I always thought Google had more cash than Apple...this sounded off, so looked it up. Google's at 64B cash + liquid assets, Apple at 32B. Oh, no, how will Google ever compete with that?
I always thought Google had more cash than Apple...this sounded off, so looked it up. Google's at 64B cash + liquid assets, Apple at 32B. Oh, no, how will Google ever compete with that?
That information is way off Apple had $178B as of Jan 2015 http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/28/investing/apple-cash-178-bil... The 32B is probably just the profit for a single quarter.
Apple has 178 billions
http://www.zdnet.com/pictures/hey-big-spender-apple-has-178-...
Apple has a somewhat significant chunk of money that is in liquid, but long dated (>1yr) debt. It is not included in that 32B number, but it is easily converted to foreign cash.
This is only part of the picture, though. With a 700B market cap, they have access to the debt market.
Apple has $179B in cash. And that's after paying +$10B per year in dividends.
Thanks all for pointing out the correct numbers!!!
Apple has $178b after last quarter's blow out
Lots of the things on this list could be accomplished with a partnership rather than an acquisition. Can anyone elaborate as to why Apple might choose to acquire over simply buying in?
Because Apple has a habit of buying companies to ensure that no one else can use the same technology. That's the reason the Nexus 6 doesn't have a fingerprint reader. Apple didn't invent that technology, they bought the company that did so no one else could use it.
You're being disingenuous, Apple buying AuthenTec prevented the N6 from having a fingerprint reader but not for the reasons you're implying (ie. patents). It prevented the wished design for the reader (touch instead of swipe) on the back dimple but the N6 could still have had a fingerprint reader. AuthenTec does not have patents that would prevent other companies from making touch-based readers they were just first to market, in fact there are currently devices that have similar sensors (Huawei Mate being one of those: http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/04/huawei-ascend-mate-7-fing...)
In anycase, Apple has put out specs for a handful of standards and freely licensing the IP for them. It is in Apple's benefit to make open standards that become adopted by everyone else. They get the market leader hype + guaranteed accessory market and, in some cases, royalties.
In anycase, Apple has put out specs for a handful of standards and freely licensing the IP for them. It is in Apple's benefit to make open standards that become adopted by everyone else. They get the market leader hype + guaranteed accessory market and, in some cases, royalties.
Right, Apple bought them so no one else could do the same type of touch fingerprint reader. Having to instead rely on the older swipe style which doesn't work as well.
disingenuous usually implies intent, it's not a great word choice where you aren't certain of that (I think on discussion boards being misinformed is at least as common as attempting to mislead).
If this is the case, wouldn't an acquisition by Apple be against the interest of Tesla? I thought the idea behind the Superchargers and the upcoming Gigafactory and the release of Tesla's patents for other company's use was that it was a way to get the industry to shore up his own business. The Apple "walled-garden" doesn't seem to fit with that.
So no phones can ever have fingerprint recognition? There is no other way around? Or Do they have to pay royalty to Apple?
Back in the Windows CE days, I used to own a Toshiba smartphone with a fingerprint reader on the backside.
Apple were not the first, but definitely their solution is the sexiest.
Apple were not the first, but definitely their solution is the sexiest.
The one that Apple bought are the best in the tech and so not many want to go with a sub par supplier.
Under U.S. law, that doesn't seem like a stretch to me at all.
For all that is great in the world, I hope this isn't true.
Cars used to be mechanical miracle, today they are controlled by 'computers' and 'softwares'. Above all, their pricing is rip-off for high end cars esp., I am not currently sold for electric-only car, but I am more favorable for hybrid and I hope Apple make one too.
If you can read, computers and software above while you do know skills of Apple for both industrial and software design, perhaps you could find the missing piece of the puzzle.
If they re not working on a car, they should. And we do know, Apple can bring down the price of 'high-end' to near affordable. That's where, the current leaders in this industry need to worry.
If you can read, computers and software above while you do know skills of Apple for both industrial and software design, perhaps you could find the missing piece of the puzzle.
If they re not working on a car, they should. And we do know, Apple can bring down the price of 'high-end' to near affordable. That's where, the current leaders in this industry need to worry.
> Above all, their pricing is rip-off for high end cars esp.
This is where you lost me, there is much more than styling with higher end cars.
> Apple can bring down the price of 'high-end' to near affordable
So many questions, but one stands out - what do you think a software company is going to do that Ford, Audi, BMW, Chrysler, GM, etc. haven't already looked into or are already doing? Ford Sync sucks, does that mean a car from Apple will be better cause it has better 'apps'?
This is where you lost me, there is much more than styling with higher end cars.
> Apple can bring down the price of 'high-end' to near affordable
So many questions, but one stands out - what do you think a software company is going to do that Ford, Audi, BMW, Chrysler, GM, etc. haven't already looked into or are already doing? Ford Sync sucks, does that mean a car from Apple will be better cause it has better 'apps'?
no, they wont.
Tesla and Apple are ideological opposites, I really hope this never comes to pass.
[deleted]
The claim that game is already over is wrong, major car manufacturers like BMW, Audi, Mercedes, GM, Ford, PSA, are working on all possible approaches at once. They tested and tried any possible power train technology you can think of (except fission reactors and fusion reactors).
They are offering integrated services, even if they are moving slower than SV inspired companies, u should not underestimated their ability to move faster than expected. The automotive market is extremely competitive, companies that are succesful their, are succesful for a reason.
Cars are extremly complex, far more complex than an iPhone (there is a reason why they cost much more than an iPhone).
Teslas advantage is mainly that it can make money with selling certificates in California. This is good, but can not be applied worldwide.
The automotive industries supply chain is vast, they do operate globally, their relationships are much more complex than the electronics industry.
The devil is in the detail, Teslas much admired agility is no match for a Porsche or an i8. Building engines is an art.
Sales channels, selling a car is an art in itself (I do know something about selling cars, because my business idea is about selling cars, better of course than anyone else;-)). The sales channels are established and deep in the markets. Tesla has some trouble in China.
After Sales, a car needs after sales support.
Regulation, global car regulation is complex, wild and full of wonders.
Tastes, u will not believe how different tastes are globally. A Tesla looks like a Japanese Car to me as a German (which is a malus). A BMW, or Audi has it's own design language which is full of character and sophistication.
The hill to sell a car here is really really big.
But if Tesla and Apple bring some new ideas on the table, it would probably good for all participants.
@asknbid or @obylocom