Apple May Have Considered Purchasing Tesla, Researching Audio to Predict Heart Attacks

[PinkyMacGodess]

That's not what I meant. Steve Jobs' vision ended when he passed. Anything he left behind may be carried on by Apple but Steve Jobs will never have a new vision. However, his mission to change the world is shared by other visionaries, one of which is Elon Musk. Elon would have his own vision for the world, for what's important to change, for what direction things should go. Apple needs a new visionary and I can't think of anybody better than Elon Musk.

I understand what you were trying to say, but I was getting at the idea that there will never be another 'Steve Jobs'. His ideas were his. Elon Musk, or anyone else, would try to 'mold' Apple into his idea of what Apple should be.

The problem is that the world is awash with bad ideas. There is no way to guarantee that bad ideas don't happen, and that bad ideas won't ruin a company. Even good ideas presented in the wrong way can kill a company.

I would think that Apple *has* visionaries that are working right there, *right now*. Apple needs to *listen* to those visionaries, and hone those visions into elegant and coherent products.

Through out most of the hagiography of Steve Jobs, one thing comes out: He didn't come up with many of the ideas for the products that shook the world, he *honed* the ideas of others, he *polished*, he *simplified* and *shaped* the ideas, he in essence *respected* the ideas and focused them more clearly in a direction to maximize their effect. He was brutal in his determination to not put out 'crap'.

He was more of a lens, or forge where ideas were crafted and refined...

Apple doesn't need a 'Steve Jobs clone' as much as it needs its 'heart and soul' of making incredible ideas even more incredible to continue. It needs to keep 'Think(ing) Different'. (Like I still think an Apple car audio unit would shake that market to the ground)

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Tesla still exists as an independent company because of the hundreds of millions of credits paid to it by other car companies as well as subsidies paid by gracious Chinese who having been buying US debt for 42 years. I'm in the 47% so I know it's not my money.

If Elon Musk were honest and said "a Tesla Model S is still dirtier over it's life than a Prius... but hey it performs like a Lamborghini and by 2019, a new Tesla WILL be cleaner than a Prius" I would support him whole-heartedly but as it is now, I cannot.

The fact is, Elon Musk sells a fast-growing yet still premature technology as though it were superior. Michael Jordan may be voted the best player in NBA history (I'd go for Magic or Oscar Robertson) but in 1973, at 10 years old, he couldn't take John Havlicek who was in his prime.

The real pioneer will be either the first maker of an EV or the maker of an all electric that is actually greener than a hybrid. Otherwise, Tesla is really a place-holder between the first electrics and future green electrics.

Saying early EV makers were not pioneers because they did not succeed would be like saying Amelia Earheart was not a pioneer because she failed to make it around the world.

I'm just hoping to see a 'ground breaking car' like the Prius that won't be recalled as much as the Prius.

I owned a Prius for almost two years. I experienced the flaws. It's good that they can 'reprogram' the car, but I wondered what the heck they needed to reprogram in the first place. We've had cars for how many years on this planet? Is the concept of 'braking' really that odd?

If the Tesla's are faster, cleaner, safer, and longer lasting than the Prius, then that is an accomplishment. If they are recalled less that is awesome. To rip Tesla down now when its cars are still so rather new, is misguided and tragic. I hope in my lifetime we are able to see cars that run off batteries that can drive across the country with only a couple of charges and are safe and 'clean'.

========

The fact is, Steve Jobs sells a fast-growing yet still premature technology as though it were superior. <= The iPod, after it came out.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That is quite true and something that is always overlooked. At that time electric cars were no where near ready for prime time and the gas engine prevailed. Now fast forward a hundred years or so till today, and EV's and the alternatives are setting the ground work to slowly ease the internal combustion engine off the top of the pile.

A number of events conspired to make the ICE the preferred power source for automobiles 100 or more years ago, one of which was the discovery of huge oil reserves that could be easily extracted. Although electricity is far more efficient than internal combustion, oil was so abundant and cheap, the energy wastage wasn't an issue. It is now. As then, energy storage is the primary issue for electricity.

As luck would have it, I drove behind a Tesla S today. Only the second one I've ever seen.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If you don't see the irony in Apple today from their mocking of the computer giant in the 1984 commercial I have nothing to add.

I get your point, but it's a real stretch to call it irony. The mocking of the 1984 ad (ill advised though it was) was directed towards the idea that everyone should be made to do things the same way. For a reminder about the history, in 1984 the message was, if you used a computer, it had to be an IBM-PC.

I don't see where Apple is any more about having people conform in 2014 than they were in 1984.

 

[DavidF.]

What about satellite radio?

If Apple wants to get into every new car why don't they buy Sirius/XM radio? It seems to at least be an option in every new car. You subscribe to iTunes Match and you get satellite radio too. iOS can then be sent to every car and sync'ed with your iPhone. You also get internet access in your car.

What are the technical possibilities and challenges for something like this?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Tesla? That WOULD sink Apple for sure. Tesla is more hype than reality. The reality is that until you can both get an electric car that can be recharged in a similar time frame to a refilling a gasoline engine AND have service stations set up to recharge them, they're going to be an economic failure in the long run. No one wants a car that can only go 150 miles and then has to sit for 4 hours (assuming a 240V station actually exists to recharge it; otherwise 12+ hours for 120V if you can find an outlet that someone will let you use somewhere since service stations don't service electrics.) Frankly, natural gas cars would have a better chance. At least that is relatively cheap energy right now.

And while electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion, you have to consider the MASSIVE LOSSES due to transmission with electricity. That is why gas furnaces have traditionally been more popular than 100% efficient electrics. The overall cost of gas has to be MIGHTY HIGH before it passes electricity's overall price. In other words, efficiency means nothing when the overall gas price is 1/2 to 1/3 of that of electricity. So until someone invents room temperature super-conducting transmission wire or we all have enough solar on our roofs to power our house AND car or someone comes up with cheap fusion reactors, electricity will continue to be one of the most expensive sources to use. I bought a heat pump seven years ago when gas was still very high to supplement my gas furnace and provide cheaper air conditioning compared to the one the house came with and right now even with its massive equivalent efficiency (almost 400%), it's cheaper to run natural gas at all temperatures for heating.

You'd be better off pushing hydrogen + nuclear. Newer nuclear reactors produce hydrogen as a by-product (new supply) and you can even use the same reactors to drive a desalination water plant by using the ocean water as the coolant (through a heat exchanger, obviously as you don't want radioactive water). You'd get cheaper electricity, hydrogen for fuel cells and a source of water for California that they could then pipe/sell to Las Vegas (who is running out of water faster than you say Viva Las Vegas) if/when their own rain returns. But no, people are scared of nuclear so let their soil dry out and their cars sit in the garage.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I get your point, but it's a real stretch to call it irony. The mocking of the 1984 ad (ill advised though it was) was directed towards the idea that everyone should be made to do things the same way. For a reminder about the history, in 1984 the message was, if you used a computer, it had to be an IBM-PC.

I don't see where Apple is any more about having people conform in 2014 than they were in 1984.

Maybe ironic isn't the proper word choice, but Apple was supposed to be the antithesis of IBM world, where the user has freedom of choice. IMO, Apple is now quite like the IBM of the mobile computing world. In the 1984 commercial, Apple users were different, they went against the grain. I personally do no see it that way anymore.

 

[macsForLife]

Tesla have no "real" plans for #40K car, it is just big time BS Musk is selling to investors for years, but it will get old soon. BTW: GM , Porsche, Audi, BMW and bla, bla have same full electric ($)$$,$$$ cars in production this year.

You need to stop saying things that are untrue...it's extremely annoying and really clogging up this thread.

 

[ctdonath]

Do you think Tesla has any particular experience in integrating media players into automobiles?

Actually, the entire Tesla "dashboard" is a rather sophisticated touchscreen user interface, including media player. So, yes.

No way Apple is interested in buying Tesla, but there sure is room for a symbiotic relationship.

----------

If Apple wants to get into every new car why don't they buy Sirius/XM radio?

Because satellite radio offers nothing for Apple. Cellular & WiFi are sufficient most of the time. What they need is a solid easy integration of your iP* with the car's dashboard and ambient networks.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe ironic isn't the proper word choice, but Apple was supposed to be the antithesis of IBM world, where the user has freedom of choice. IMO, Apple is now quite like the IBM of the mobile computing world. In the 1984 commercial, Apple users were different, they went against the grain. I personally do no see it that way anymore.

By definition the only way for Apple to have remained that way was for them to not succeed. I wouldn't want to make too much over marketing, let alone one ad from 30 years ago, but I think Apple has remained true to its fundamental approach. Begrudging them the success that this vision has produced is kind of a quibble about nothing, really, don't you think?

 

[NewbieCanada]

If Apple wants to get into every new car why don't they buy Sirius/XM radio? It seems to at least be an option in every new car. You subscribe to iTunes Match and you get satellite radio too. iOS can then be sent to every car and sync'ed with your iPhone. You also get internet access in your car.

What are the technical possibilities and challenges for something like this?

SiriusXM operates only in Canada and the United States. I don't know if there are similar companies operating elsewhere. But the whole idea of launching and maintaining several satellites in order to beam music to people isn't long term sustainable. New methods of getting data to cars are going to come around. You wouldn't get internet in your car right now because SiriusXM's satellites are one-way. They also have a network of land-based repeaters for cities. If you live in a city chances are you're not actually getting satellite radio.

 

[AppleScruff1]

By definition the only way for Apple to have remained that way was for them to not succeed. I wouldn't want to make too much over marketing, let alone one ad from 30 years ago, but I think Apple has remained true to its fundamental approach. Begrudging them the success that this vision has produced is kind of a quibble about nothing, really, don't you think?

I'm not begrudging them any success. And perhaps I am quibbling over nothing. I'm just putting it out there since if it was the other way around it probably would be a big deal here, not you personally, just speaking generally.

 

[MacLC]

How is comparing Tesla to Michael Jordan ripping Tesla

My statements are directed to 1 crowd: Tesla fanboys who disrespect everything that paved the way for Tesla to exist. To say early pioneers in EV tech were not pioneers because Tesla is more successful is like saying Jackie Robinson was not a pioneer because Hammering Hank beat Ruth's record.

You imply that I need to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt because it is new, then suggest that Teslas are faster (true), cleaner (false), safer (arguably false), and longer lasting. Yet the last point can't be determined yet because as you said it is still new.

Here is the article I refer to on the Model S being dirtier than the Prius:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...model-s-electric-car-pollute-more-than-an-suv
It is in response to a poorly written article trashing Tesla and is written in Tesla's defense.

I am a fan of green tech but I am more a fan of honesty. Tesla does not design the battery technology that it depends on to be "green". That technology is is still 5 years away from being "clean", though it has come leaps and bounds in the past 5 years. To call present technology superior because it is on a superior projection with superior momentum is dishonest.

I have NOTHING against Tesla's Model S. I have EVERYTHING against how Elon Musk is marketing the Model S. People are buying into the marketing. Steve Jobs announced that Intel had superior performance/Watt to AIM's G5 back in 2005.

The difference is that Steve Jobs did not sell the inferior Netburst CPUs in any mac (other than developer P4-based systems). Elon Musk is selling the ancestor of a superior product as though it were the descendent.

I'm just hoping to see a 'ground breaking car' like the Prius that won't be recalled as much as the Prius.

I owned a Prius for almost two years. I experienced the flaws. It's good that they can 'reprogram' the car, but I wondered what the heck they needed to reprogram in the first place. We've had cars for how many years on this planet? Is the concept of 'braking' really that odd?

If the Tesla's are faster, cleaner, safer, and longer lasting than the Prius, then that is an accomplishment. If they are recalled less that is awesome. To rip Tesla down now when its cars are still so rather new, is misguided and tragic. I hope in my lifetime we are able to see cars that run off batteries that can drive across the country with only a couple of charges and are safe and 'clean'.

========

The fact is, Steve Jobs sells a fast-growing yet still premature technology as though it were superior. <= The iPod, after it came out.

 

[SockRolid]

The hybrid I want:

Image

I've sat in a Panamera but never actually ridden in or driven one.
But here's the hybrid I want:

McLaren P1. 727 bhp (531 lb ft) 3.8-liter twin-turbo V8 + 176 bhp (192 lb ft) electric motor.
Total power = 903 bhp (723 lb ft)
Curb weight = 3,075 lb
Top speed = 217 mph (electronically limited)
Nuerburgring Nordschleife lap time: unknown, but under 7 minutes.

McLaren hasn't announced the P1's Nuerburgring lap time, but just for perspective, the all-time lap record is 6:11.13, set by Stefan Bellof in a Porsche 956 race car when qualifying for a race there. Back in 1983.

Here's a teaser video of the P1 doing the Nuerburgring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9IWiTpWeiM

 

[IJ Reilly]

I have NOTHING against Tesla's Model S. I have EVERYTHING against how Elon Musk is marketing the Model S. People are buying into the marketing. Steve Jobs announced that Intel had superior performance/Watt to AIM's G5 back in 2005.

The difference is that Steve Jobs did not sell the inferior Netburst CPUs in any mac (other than developer P4-based systems). Elon Musk is selling the ancestor of a superior product as though it were the descendent.

Yes, you understand what you are buying. Others are too dumb to know that they're being sold fluff or lies.

 

[Dmunjal]

Yes, you understand what you are buying. Others are too dumb to know that they're being sold fluff or lies.

I wouldn't go that far. Tesla buyers aren't buying the Model S as Elon Musk fanboys or because they are trying to be green.

Many are buying because it makes simple economic sense. Of course, there's an $80k price of entry but most of the initial buyers were going to buy BMW 5/7 or Mercedes E/S anyway.

However, when married to a solar panel and low nighttime EV utility rates, they cost NOTHING to drive on a daily basis. I calculated savings of $2500 last year alone on gas expense versus an equivalent 25mpg car.

Not having to go the gas station ever again, much lower maintenance, being green, HOV Lane access, free long distance travel, and federal rebates were icing on the cake.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I wouldn't go that far. Tesla buyers aren't buying the Model S as Elon Musk fanboys or because they are trying to be green.

Many are buying because it makes simple economic sense. Of course, there's an $80k price of entry but most of the initial buyers were going to buy BMW 5/7 or Mercedes E/S anyway.

However, when married to a solar panel and low nighttime EV utility rates, they cost NOTHING to drive on a daily basis. I calculated savings of $2500 last year alone on gas expense versus an equivalent 25mpg car.

Not having to go the gas station ever again, much lower maintenance, being green, HOV Lane access, free long distance travel, and federal rebates were icing on the cake.

I was attempting to satirize the remark. Lots of people seem to be perfectly comfortable telling other people what personal choices should make sense to them. Buying an $80k EV is not entirely an economic choice, no more than spending the same or close to the same for a conventionally powered car.

That said, no car costs nothing to drive; that's an illusion. Not is fuel not the only consumable, one of the largest un-calculated costs is depreciation. Anyone who doesn't keep their cars for most of their useful service life has paid a lot to own it.

 

[Dmunjal]

I was attempting to satirize the remark. Lots of people seem to be perfectly comfortable telling other people what personal choices should make sense to them. Buying an $80k EV is not entirely an economic choice, no more than spending the same or close to the same for a conventionally powered car.

That said, no car costs nothing to drive; that's an illusion. Not is fuel not the only consumable, one of the largest un-calculated costs is depreciation. Anyone who doesn't keep their cars for most of their useful service life has paid a lot to own it.

I was comparing it to other cars. Of course, all cars depreciate, require insurance, etc.

But fueling is a big difference which I was trying to illustrate.

 

[jacobj]

Agreed, very interesting research. In all corners of the internet you will see when Tesla's name is brought up it will take precedence of the conversation. The skeptics and die hard "fanbois" come out.

I think I'm a die hard fanbois, but I too am more interested in the heart attack part of this article. It would fit with the revolutionary idea that Apple has of itself. If they were to crack it at some point in the future, then to only make it available in high priced Apple products would be unforgivable.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I was comparing it to other cars. Of course, all cars depreciate, require insurance, etc.

But fueling is a big difference which I was trying to illustrate.

It could be a big difference, depending on your driving. Very much depending. The depreciation rate on a Tesla is a huge unknown, but I am guessing that it will be much faster than a conventional car. But as I say, I am not judging. I will leave that to others.

 

[2298754]

Tesla and Apple would be a match made in heaven. The Tesla buyer is most likely an Apple buyer also.

 

[Retired Cat]

No one wants a car that can only go 150 miles and then has to sit for 4 hours (assuming a 240V station actually exists to recharge it; otherwise 12+ hours for 120V if you can find an outlet that someone will let you use somewhere since service stations don't service electrics.)

I agree. An electric with those specs would not be very good.

However, Tesla's Model S has up to a 265 mile range according to EPA (base model rated 208 miles), and will charge about 50% in 20 minutes at a Tesla Supercharger station. I think that most people can just charge the car at night when they are home. Some companies allow EVs to charge at work parking lots.


I used to think that electric cars sucked, and they did suck bad prior to Tesla. A Tesla isn't for everyone, but I have to admit that they made a good car. They are selling them as fast as they can make them.

 

[Arfdog]

Maybe ironic isn't the proper word choice, but Apple was supposed to be the antithesis of IBM world, where the user has freedom of choice. IMO, Apple is now quite like the IBM of the mobile computing world. In the 1984 commercial, Apple users were different, they went against the grain. I personally do no see it that way anymore.

So just because there are many more Apple users and Apple is the biggest gorilla automatically means Apple is like IBM? Right. So just because a company is big means it's like IBM.

Apple users never had "freedom of choice" because it's Apple's job to make the choices. Not mine, not the consumer. That's why we buy Apples, because we have work to do, and that work does not include fiddling with settings. And they are the same today, especially in Jobs' Act 2.

 

[AnalyzeThis]

You need to stop saying things that are untrue...it's extremely annoying and really clogging up this thread.

Really, Not true? What exactly Tesla is done to prove they could mass produce electric cars? Yeah, right - absolutely nothing, zero, zilch. When in fact, everything they ever have done proves they have absolutely no clue how to do it. You need to read less into Musk propaganda, his fat valet buys a lot of articles on the net and web site outposts fools are falling for. It does not even take an engineer to see through his smoke and mirrors. In 10 years everyone will be laughing at battery based old tech cars - it would like Nokia dumb phones. Tesla could not even produce the battery, not even a battery cell, instead they are begging Japanese and Koreans for some left overs.

 

[AnalyzeThis]

I'm just hoping to see a 'ground breaking car' like the Prius that won't be recalled as much as the Prius.

I owned a Prius for almost two years. I experienced the flaws. It's good that they can 'reprogram' the car, but I wondered what the heck they needed to reprogram in the first place. We've had cars for how many years on this planet? Is the concept of 'braking' really that odd?

If the Tesla's are faster, cleaner, safer, and longer lasting than the Prius, then that is an accomplishment. If they are recalled less that is awesome. To rip Tesla down now when its cars are still so rather new, is misguided and tragic. I hope in my lifetime we are able to see cars that run off batteries that can drive across the country with only a couple of charges and are safe and 'clean'.

========

The fact is, Steve Jobs sells a fast-growing yet still premature technology as though it were superior. <= The iPod, after it came out.

Tesla could not afford any "real" recall - they have no service near you. If case of any "real" recall - the solution would be simple - bankruptcy. They have neither money, nor staff or facilities to handle it. So stick with Toyota for now, it is your safest bet.