It is unlikely that Apple will be able to top Google's car in cuteness—a very important metric when buying a car.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Expands Company Trademarks to Cover Vehicles, but Similar Filings Date Back to 2003
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple will not make a watch!!!
We heard all this before Apple actually did. So, lets wait out and see what happens. At least until the leaks start to surface.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Samsung_Motors
Samsung is already a long time in automotive, apple copying again.
If he did that in a public bay I’d have made an example of him, (assuming I was in a position to do so).
I’d feel like a right douche driving an iCar though, (regardless of what Apple call it that’s what it’ll be dubbed).
But if it came with that Supercharged 5 and a half it’ll sound better quality than anything on the iTunes store.
Of late I’m now in two minds about the iWatch…..
Tesla is a publicly traded company. I'm unfamiliar with how all this works but can't anybody with enough money at least buy a controlling share of Tesla without Musk's consent?
Nobody expects Apple to manufacture a car, they don't even manufacture phones.
Yup, exactly. It's what's known as a hostile takeover. And yes, Apple has plenty of cash to do that to Tesla. The only real questions are whether they're really serious about building a car; and if they think Tesla's worth what it would cost to buy them (in either a friendly or hostile takeover).
Edit: Per http://business.time.com/2014/02/26/elon-musk-1-1-billion-tesla-tuesday/, Elon Musk only owns about 23% of Tesla, so not a controlling share...
Last edited:
Their automotive business is practically dead. They're only selling cars in one country now and they even took the "Samsung" name off the cars. They just go by "Renault" now.
Question that would matter is how many of the shares are publicly held?
while the company might be publicly traded, if controlling interest is held by a few loyal individuals, there's no obligation to sell controlling interest in the company to outside sources.
Musk currently owns ~28% of Tesla. I am unable to figure out right now where the remainder is.
But these days, its not common for owners to let majority stock in the wild, exactly to prevent hostile takeovers
Age of trademarks
It doesn't matter that Apple first had trademarks in this area going back to 2003. It's always possible that they had nascent ideas about cars back then too. It's also possible that just like the iPad, which was being developed as far back as 2001, they decided the technology wasn't developed enough for a successful product, and that people weren't yet ready for it.
But now, we're used to the idea of electric cars, just as we were prepared for an iPad after the iPhone. As its being said, it can take Apple five years to get a car on the road, if they are working on doing so. And, of course, the naysayers who are trying to point out how difficult this is, and the regulations Apple will have to wade through as so complex, that Apple won't have an interest in doing it, are ignoring one major thing, well, perhaps two.
The first, and the biggest, is that Apple would have an automotive partner to build this vehicle, and who would have a part in designing portions of it. This partner, being an auto manufacturer, would be very familiar with the complexities of the regulatory system.
The second is that many of the regulations involve pollution, and danger, from gas and diesel fueled autos. If Apple would be doing an electric auto, and I can't imagine anything else, then all of those regulations don't apply. Electric vehicles are also much simpler.
So while I don't pretend to know anything here, I can imagine that Apple would, at the very least, be looking into this in a serious way. Even if they don't plan to sell their own, they might be doing research into an actual car to see more intimately how the mechanical systems interact with the computerized ones. It's very possible, that even without an actual car, Apple may want more than just an entertainment system overlaying someone else's OS. Perhaps they want the whole thing, and only by building a car themselves will they understand it well enough.
It doesn't matter that Apple first had trademarks in this area going back to 2003. It's always possible that they had nascent ideas about cars back then too. It's also possible that just like the iPad, which was being developed as far back as 2001, they decided the technology wasn't developed enough for a successful product, and that people weren't yet ready for it.
But now, we're used to the idea of electric cars, just as we were prepared for an iPad after the iPhone. As its being said, it can take Apple five years to get a car on the road, if they are working on doing so. And, of course, the naysayers who are trying to point out how difficult this is, and the regulations Apple will have to wade through as so complex, that Apple won't have an interest in doing it, are ignoring one major thing, well, perhaps two.
The first, and the biggest, is that Apple would have an automotive partner to build this vehicle, and who would have a part in designing portions of it. This partner, being an auto manufacturer, would be very familiar with the complexities of the regulatory system.
The second is that many of the regulations involve pollution, and danger, from gas and diesel fueled autos. If Apple would be doing an electric auto, and I can't imagine anything else, then all of those regulations don't apply. Electric vehicles are also much simpler.
So while I don't pretend to know anything here, I can imagine that Apple would, at the very least, be looking into this in a serious way. Even if they don't plan to sell their own, they might be doing research into an actual car to see more intimately how the mechanical systems interact with the computerized ones. It's very possible, that even without an actual car, Apple may want more than just an entertainment system overlaying someone else's OS. Perhaps they want the whole thing, and only by building a car themselves will they understand it well enough.
Apple isn't going to make a phone. Period.
Apple isn't going to make a tablet. Period.
Apple isn't going to make a watch. Period.
We hear the same thing every time Apple has a rumored product in the works.
A Mac tablet? Not just no, but 'heck no'
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/07/23/a-mac-tablet-not-just-no-but-heck-no/
Yeah you do realise that those are all PC's in some from? Something quite different from a car?
I do see them in a partnership, not as a sole manufacturer for anything that a regular person can buy ,
Yuk!
I really don't understand why some people say this. Tesla has nothing in common with Apple. I know that Musk likes to compare himself to Jobs. But frankly, he's a pale imitation. Tesla isn't all that innovative. There's not much special about his cars other than the high price.
Otherwise, they're pedestrian. Yes, they look good, as they should for more than $100 thousand. And yes, they have good, short term performance, as they should at at that price. But otherwise, what's great about them? Not much, really. 200 mile range, but only if you don't use the heater during the winter, or the air conditioning during the summer. Careful about breaking, careful about accelerating, watch the speed. Yeah, great for a luxury car.
And the company is having major problems producing its newest model, it has problems with some older models, and is losing large amounts of money. They sold about 38,000 cars last year, hardly worth counting.
So what's so innovative or visionary about Musk, or his company?
And it's worth about $25 billion right now (though the price has been dropping). If Apple bought it, they would need to pay almost twice that. And what for? For far less money, they can do the work themselves. It's not as though Apple doesn't had a name that would sell more cars the first year than Tesla has sold since the beginning, and that's five years from now.
And then there's the price. Tesla's cars are all over $100 thousand, and higher once extras are added. The cheaper, $45,000 car he's trying to build is way behind schedule, because of major problems.
But Apple doesn't build expensive products. They just seem expensive, because they don't build cheap products either. Apple's products are described as being affordable luxury. A car that's over $100 thousand can't be described that way.
Maybe Tesla will get that cheaper car off the assembly lines to customers, maybe not. But Apple would make cars that cost between $35,000 and $45,000 in base configurations, and it would be highly unlikely they would sell one for over $100 thousand.
----------
Not always true, and that's assuming that he's what he bills himself as.
I really don't understand why some people say this. Tesla has nothing in common with Apple. I know that Musk likes to compare himself to Jobs. But frankly, he's a pale imitation. Tesla isn't all that innovative. There's not much special about his cars other than the high price.
Otherwise, they're pedestrian. Yes, they look good, as they should for more than $100 thousand. And yes, they have good, short term performance, as they should at at that price. But otherwise, what's great about them? Not much, really. 200 mile range, but only if you don't use the heater during the winter, or the air conditioning during the summer. Careful about breaking, careful about accelerating, watch the speed. Yeah, great for a luxury car.
And the company is having major problems producing its newest model, it has problems with some older models, and is losing large amounts of money. They sold about 38,000 cars last year, hardly worth counting.
So what's so innovative or visionary about Musk, or his company?
And it's worth about $25 billion right now (though the price has been dropping). If Apple bought it, they would need to pay almost twice that. And what for? For far less money, they can do the work themselves. It's not as though Apple doesn't had a name that would sell more cars the first year than Tesla has sold since the beginning, and that's five years from now.
And then there's the price. Tesla's cars are all over $100 thousand, and higher once extras are added. The cheaper, $45,000 car he's trying to build is way behind schedule, because of major problems.
But Apple doesn't build expensive products. They just seem expensive, because they don't build cheap products either. Apple's products are described as being affordable luxury. A car that's over $100 thousand can't be described that way.
Maybe Tesla will get that cheaper car off the assembly lines to customers, maybe not. But Apple would make cars that cost between $35,000 and $45,000 in base configurations, and it would be highly unlikely they would sell one for over $100 thousand.
----------
Not always true, and that's assuming that he's what he bills himself as.
just by saying this single paragraph you have outed yourself at having little knowledge at all about what Tesla is.
Elon Musk, through Tesla invented the technology behind the rapid power charging technology that is a near requirement at this poitn for battery powered cards to even have a chance.
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/supercharger
And then, instead of draconian measures to limit and control who can use the technology, Musk gave free access to all supercharger patents for anyone who wants to create electric cars.
this has been a revolutionary step in the electric vehicle world and without it we'd basically be stuck with Chevy Volts.
this is just his work with Tesla. he's also head of SpaceX that is designing one of the first reusable, rocket based space exploration vehicles.
he was one of the leading drivers behind PayPal's near universal online payment systems back in the day.
From a purely technical knowledge standpoint, Elon Musk is a lot more technically knwoledgeable and proficient than Steve Jobs ever was. Remember, Job's wasn't the techie. He was the "visionary" who knew how to take the tech, give it a fancy veneer that people wanted and then selling them.
He was not actually a leading inventor of technology himself.
Last edited:
Well, not really. Hostile takeovers can be prevented in other ways, typically with provisions called "poison pills."
http://www.money-zine.com/investing/stocks/poison-pill-defense/
Also, "publicly held" isn't really a concept that applies.
never seen the poison pill strategy before. interesting too
suffice ot say we're basically saying the same thing to these guys
A hostile takover isn't as simple as "why hasn't Apple just bought them yet"
there's way more too it than just having money
Why because you say so!
That is your opinion, not fact!
They might be doing a new food mixer for all we know however I think they are going to create a Car because it makes o much sense in light of what we do know.
I mean look at it this way, Apple are not hiring Engineers with expertise in Car R&D and The workings of Car Engineering and batteries etc just to create Software such as Carplay or some after market accessory.
That is your opinion, not fact!
They might be doing a new food mixer for all we know however I think they are going to create a Car because it makes o much sense in light of what we do know.
I mean look at it this way, Apple are not hiring Engineers with expertise in Car R&D and The workings of Car Engineering and batteries etc just to create Software such as Carplay or some after market accessory.
