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 May Have Considered Purchasing Tesla, Researching Audio to Predict Heart Attacks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lol. A lot of clarification is in order here.
Most people, most of the time, drive much less than 150 miles (or 200 miles in the Tesla's case). It's like a cell phone, you charge it overnight for a full charge the next morning.
And that is a small price to pay for the massive savings you get. With electricity at $0.12 per kWh, it costs $10 for 200 miles, worst case in cold weather. That's $0.05 per mile. I pay about $0.17 per mile in my gas car. Electricity is 1/3 the price of gas. So if you spend $2000 a year in gas, you'll save $1300. That'll cover insurance.
Also transmission losses are baked into the price of electricity. Even so, transmission loss in the US is 7%. Power plant efficiency is 40-60%. Electric motor and battery for an electric car are 90% and 80% efficient respectively. So the overall efficiency for an electric car running fossil-fuel electricity is still 27%. Compare that to a gas or diesel which is about 20% efficient.
Provide genetic proof we are different species. Then I won't take your comments personally.
----------
God, that would be awesome. Model S for $30k in a year or 2 with less than 20k miles, perhaps? But I doubt it. At least short term, it is more likely to have slower depreciation, I think.
Pseudo science? It may be some way off, but the basic logic is reasonable. What is ultrasound but the representation of sound in a visual medium. The horrible irony is that if we all wore one and agreed to share our data with apple, then when some of us have heart attacks they could analyse the differences and identify the markers. There is a fight here between big brother paranoia and big data revolutions. Interesting times.
Tesla just performed a full recall to all their cars via an over the air update. It took a couple of weeks and cost practically nothing. Toyota had to do the same thing recently with the Prius and had to schedule each car to come in for a few hours of labor. Big difference.
Hahaha I loved this comment because it's so true. People love to criticize products like the iPhone, but then turn right around and make love to their Galaxy S4 (5? 6? Whatever number we're on now). It's like, you have that phone because of Apple. Companies like HTC, Motorola, and even Samsung would have their phones and tablets on a drawing board and no further. It's not about you liking the iPhone, it's other people liking it. Because without all of them, the iPhone wouldn't be such a success. And without it being so successful, companies wouldn't be pressured to make that device you're currently trying to insert your member into.
And how many of those Supercharger stations are there around the continental U.S.? Around the world? When can I expect them to appear so that my Tesla isn't limited to key locations in California? And 50% in 20 minutes hardly compared to 100% in 3 minutes with gasoline. Am I supposed to take a toilet break while it charges or something? Do you think people might fight over a charging station knowing that the only empty one will mean AT LEAST a 20 minute wait before it's their turn to use it and then another 20 minutes and so on? In other words, your specific example is an improvement, but fundamentally not by much. I'm sure those "ranges" are at very conservative acceleration rates. Tesla is known for "fast" electrics so taking their sports car on a "granny" ride isn't likely to happen. I doubt the "real" range for more typical driving is anywhere near that. I mean who buys a sports car to drive like a Prius? I won't even go into the pricing ranges of these vehicles that will keep them out of the mainstream (and thus any reason to offer those charging stations en masse around the country or any expectations for electric vehicles to solve any carbon emission problems (there's also the fact that one is simply moving the emissions from the car to to the power plant plus transmission power line losses perhaps making it even worse overall).
Most people take their cars on vacation or other longer trips sooner or later (I've certainly gone on plenty of 500-1200 mile trips in my life and probably average 1-3 a year) and it's precisely then that electric cars utterly fail to live up to gasoline and/or natural gas or even hydrogen powered vehicles standards. Yes, if I'm just going to use an electric vehicle to commute to work it would probably work. But if I want to go on a longer trip, I'm going to need a second non-electric vehicle or a rental car. Where are the savings if I have to own multiple cars? Buy a junker for trips? How much does this Tesla cost? I'm seeing just a shy short of $70k for this model S one you are raving about and $90k+ for one with acceleration times similar to my Subaru WRX. If I'm to take Arfdog's numbers seriously, I might save 2/3 or even 3/4 on gas, but I'd still be looking at 30+ years on average to pay off the difference (not even looking at maintenance costs, etc.). And if I'm going to spend that kind of money on a car, I'd be looking at something closer to super cars instead personally.
And how fast are they making them? I have yet to see one on the street on this end of the country.
Now I have heard about some new battery charging methods in the lab that sound promising (parallel charging of loads of small batteries), but it'd take a large amount of current to get that charge time down to the sub-5 minute range. It's a chicken/egg situation to be sure.
Software patches are not "real" recall. Replace brake line, or cable or motor via air. "Oops, this party is over, check please!". Those "schedule each car to come in for a few hours of labor" are not possible with Tesla - there is nowhere and nobody to schedule with.
Last edited:
purpose
I would not be at all surprised for Apple and Tesla to work together on power management, or perhaps one buys or licenses technology from the other. They both have huge research efforts in battery technology and device efficiency so cooperation would seem like a no-brainer.
----------
True - software patches are not "recalls" in the traditional sense.
But you are wrong about there being nowhere to go. There's a Tesla service facility a couple of miles from my house (Maryland)
----------
There are a few in Maryland. I see about one a day.
I would not be at all surprised for Apple and Tesla to work together on power management, or perhaps one buys or licenses technology from the other. They both have huge research efforts in battery technology and device efficiency so cooperation would seem like a no-brainer.
----------
True - software patches are not "recalls" in the traditional sense.
But you are wrong about there being nowhere to go. There's a Tesla service facility a couple of miles from my house (Maryland)
----------
There are a few in Maryland. I see about one a day.
There's so much wrong here. You should do some research before making all these points.
Right now, Tesla is making 8000 cars a quarter. They have the capacity to make 50000 a year. That's Porsche territory.
There are super charging stations all over the US, each with 6 or 8 stalls at no cost per use.
http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
Here's the plan for 2015.
They just completed a cross country rally, too.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/cross-country-rally-across-finish-line
Where do you live? They've sold Teslas in every state and are exporting to Europe and China.
Last edited:
Highly unlikely. The car is using technology that is undergoing evolution, so just like the phone in your pocket, after a couple of years it's worth a lot less than you paid for it. Also, the battery pack has a limited lifetime, and is a very expensive replacement item. Depreciation at 20-25% a year (the higher end of the industry) seems certain, so an $80k Tesla S would be worth around $40-50k after two years. And you probably wouldn't want it at that price, since something better and cheaper will probably have come along by then.
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.
You quote an article that is in response to an article slamming the Tesla S, and still think the Tesla cars are not 'green'?
and
and in the article's summation
I never mentioned Michael Jordan.
STILL, Electric cars ARE a step in the right direction. Would Apple buying Tesla make sense? It could... Probably long term...
And look at Bill Gates. It was once said that he was such a fantastic salesman that he could sell freezers to Eskimos and talk your grandmother out of her bloomers. I've been somewhat curious why Tesla hasn't been bought out by now, but time will tell...
As America dumps coal as a source for energy production, the differences between electric and traditional vehicles will become even more stark...
And it's silly to rip Elon Musk for being a good salesperson, selling 'old technology' as new, as you say, when Steve Jobs did the same thing. The Mac is 'just a computer' after all...
I personally think Apple acquiring Tesla is a good move. That is, IF Elon Musk actually wants to work (and eventually become the CEO) for Apple. I personally doubt Elon wants to be in that shoes, so that would be a HUGE if.
In many ways, Elon is Steve Wozniak with Steve Job's mojo. That is, he is engineer at heart (not a product designer like Steve). But he is also a big risk taker and no ashamed of wielding reality distortion field.
Having driving Model S a number of times, I do think the car would be much nicer (at least interior wise) if it was more refined. While it has a large number of impressive technology, the experience isn't quite fluid and lacks that last bit of refinements to make things click.
In many ways, Elon is Steve Wozniak with Steve Job's mojo. That is, he is engineer at heart (not a product designer like Steve). But he is also a big risk taker and no ashamed of wielding reality distortion field.
Having driving Model S a number of times, I do think the car would be much nicer (at least interior wise) if it was more refined. While it has a large number of impressive technology, the experience isn't quite fluid and lacks that last bit of refinements to make things click.
Yep, perhaps the Model C.
----------
Tesla designed the important part of the battery system for the S. Lets call it the implementation of Panasonic's off-the-shelf battery. That's what truly sets their cars apart from the other various types that plug in. And why drivers have time to look at error messages on the screen, pull over, calmly get out of their car, and wait a couple minutes before a fire starts (in highly volatile lithium) after a major accident.
And the main "green" problem is that electricity production isn't green. That's something no car maker can really control.
To make my point that ALL electric vehicles simply shift the carbon and potentially other (for coal plants) emissions to the power plant? That's a given. WTF is the point is owning an electric vehicle, then? To spend $70k-90k on a car that could have cost you $18-30k? There are modern clean emission (cleaner than typical gasoline) diesels out there right now that are getting 50-80mpg and cost less than half a Tesla and you can fuel them up almost anywhere whereas your map only PROVED my point. You can't fuel up ANYWHERE in the entire United States save that one extended corridor. If you want to drive to 90% of the country, too bad. And it's not 2015 so there's no point discussing it. Let me know if those stations show up. I can't imagine who the market is for these cars, honestly. I can only guess they are selling the cars on zero emission and yet fail to tell their customers that the power plants are emitting the pollution instead and thus the entire zero emission thing is a total LIE. You then also have to deal with loads of batteries out there that will need to be properly recycled or the potential landfill waste would make your head spin.
First you tell me that they are selling the cars as fast as they can make them and now you say they magically have almost 2x the capacity that they are making them at. If they are selling that fast why aren't they making more of them? Or did you MEAN to say that they are only making as many of them as they can sell, NOT selling as many as they can make because there's a HUGE (almost 2x) difference between the two concepts.
Here's the article I dug up from last August. ( http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/07/investing/tesla-profit/ ). I see 400 to "almost" 500 vehicles per week. 500 would be your 8000 figure, but it sounds like the average is closer to 7000 than 8000 (400 being 6400 and 500 being 8000). I suppose it's impressive and downright surprising they managed to turn a profit for a quarter given they're selling an illusion of sorts (i.e. that it's somehow reducing pollution or saving you money when it's doing NEITHER. The car costs too much to save anyone ANY money what-so-ever. In fact, it will cost them 2-4x the cost of a conventional car over the course of its life, let alone a diesel or better yet a hybrid diesel and the pollution is simply shifted to the power plant where in some cases (i.e. coal) you're potentially looking at more harmful emissions than gasoline or diesel).
Look at your own map. How is one freeway corridor crossing the U.S. "all over the US" ??? Are you using some vernacular I'm not familiar with where 100% actually means 52-64% and "all over" means a series of a single straight line freeways with no alternative routes and 90% of the country unreachable (i.e. within 125 miles of a station given heading off the route would mean you'd have to get BACK to a station to get a recharge thus cutting the overall distance in half) or would you intend to knock on people's doors and ask them if they could run a heavy duty extension cord out to your car?
On the ONE road across the country that has charging stations? Did they time their recharges to eat lunch or something since it takes 20 minutes to get a mere 50% charge? How long for a 100% charge? I mean you're doing a GREAT job of turning a lemon into lemonade, but I'm not fooled.
I'm sure Chevy has sold a few cars to China and Europe as well. That doesn't mean they sell a "lot" of cars to them, let alone a lot in general. Just because thousands of millionaires have nothing better to do than blow $70-90k on a talking piece doesn't make it a great venture. I will grant that if Apple had bought Tesla, it would fit their reputation of making overpriced/underpowered devices that are more hype than substance. Frankly, if it weren't for OSX, I'd never touch a "Mac" in a thousand years since the hardware IS overpriced and underpowered (graphically). But given the hassles of Hackintosh (upgrades at least) and its DIY nature, there aren't a lot of alternatives if you like OS X better than Windows, but you pay through the nose for it, relatively speaking.
As for where I live, I'm in Ohio, but not in Cleveland or Toledo where the only two service stations are located. The 2015 map doesn't look a whole lot more promising for the places I drive to since short of driving back home, I'd have to go pretty far out of the way to get to one. Gas and diesel fuel, OTOH are located "all over" (my definition of all over) and take 2-3 minutes to refuel 100% , not 20 minutes for 50%.
Last edited:
You've certainly made a good argument why it doesn't suit your own needs. But I think many have pointed out why it works for them. And isn't that the same as all car makes and models? I commute roughly 15k miles a year. This car would work well for me. I could potentially use it on long car trips, especially up and down the east coast but I'd probably just use my second vehicle. I understand you only have one, but you realize that many families own multiple vehicles so that option is certainly a reasonable one.
You're also trying to compare the vehicle to your much cheaper one. That doesn't make sense unless you're only trying to point out why it's a bad purchase for you (which it seems like we've already established). There are a ton of luxury cars out there that your WRX can match in performance (or outperform), yet there is still a market for them.
What end of the country? I'm from the Philly area and see 3-4 a week (not counting the one from someone in my neighborhood and the one that someone from work has).
----------
Why are you still comparing this to cars based on mileage alone? You need to compare it to other cars in its tier.
Most people don't drive cross country every day. Most people drive to work and in and around their cities. But even if they do, they don't have to leave their Tesla in the garage with the SuperCharger network in place. For those with typical driving habits, there is a charging station in every home. I've had my car for over a year and I've only charged at a public station a few times. I wake up every morning with a "full tank." Who cares if diesel gets 50-80mpg? I'm getting 100mpg without ever having to look for a gas station every few days. On top of that, I'm paying $8 to fill up my car vs. $50-60 for a typical car.
What are your driving habits that don't fit this profile?
Tesla built 7000 in Q4 last year, 5500 in Q3, 5000 in Q2. So, they are ramping up every quarter. They're selling every car they make at full list price. In fact, they've raised the price over the past year with no change in demand. The current factory has the capacity to build 50000 cars a year. They are a startup so it doesn't make sense to get up to those numbers so quickly as they have to build up a backlog of parts and components. Not to mention scaling out sales and distribution centers. They're hiring as fast as they can to get there.
As far as pollution and comparing it to gas/diesel cars, the comparison is laughable. Many states don't use coal any longer and are moving aggressively to natural gas. Even in Appalachia:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304281004579222571211857870
California, Oregon, Washington get less than 1% of their electricity from coal.
On top of that, Elon Musk also owns SolarCity. Many Tesla buyers (including me) put solar on their roofs which powers my car daily with no electricity from the grid at all. Is that green enough of you?
I'm not saying that this is a replacement for every situation. But you have to start somewhere.
I'm sure when Ford first started selling motor cars, you were out there saying, "Where do I fuel it?", "There's only one fuel station in town!", "My horse and buggy whip doesn't require expensive fuel, I just feed it hay!"
The future is bright for electric vehicles. All the other solutions require new infrastructure. This country has a power grid with electricity in every home. The infrastructure already exists. The utilities are quickly moving away from coal to natural gas and solar panels are going up everywhere.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylv...throne-king-coal-as-source-of-electric-power/
There's another point that doesn't get discussed much. Most of our gasoline still comes from other countries. And it has to be transported to get here. And then it has to be put on trucks to get to your local station. Electricity doesn't have that problem. It can be generated and sent over the power grid with minimal loss compared to oil/gas.
I liken it to the Internet allowing us to get our content real-time without having to drive to a record store, movie store, news stand, software store.
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 think you should update your info. The credits are fair game, the loans are getting paid off faster than expected.
Dirty because you're taking the most populating form of electricity production totally ignoring that it varies from region to region. All the super charge stations are solar powered, free to charge for life. FOR LIFE. Most of the Tesla owners are likely using clean energy since they could afford it.
The Prius is a great step towards greener cars but face it, its not the ultimate solution. Companies can sit here and do nothing cause a small group of ppl say electricity is "dirty" it's as dirty as you want it to be. Tesla's the first to actually keep at the game, make new desirable cars that run on electricity and from there at least you have the OPTION to recharge it in a clean way or dirty way. With the petrol car, you can only run it the dirty way.
----------
Have you driven a Model S? Did you read what they did just over the weekend? For the same price as a BMW, free charging for life at their stations from solar and usable performance and range. All that has changed nothing?
Yes, precisely. Or some other car yet to be announced. If electric cars aren't significantly more advanced in 2-3 years, it's because nobody is trying. And we know quite a few manufacturers are trying.
BTW, the "greenest" car you can own is the one you rarely drive. This may be way too obvious, but it seems to me that reorganizing your life so you don't have to drive as much isn't widely appreciated as the single best method you can implement for consuming less energy.
There are constantly new super charge stations popping up over the U.S. There is enough for you to drive the main route from the west to east coast. Surely you didn't expect one to one ratio to gas stations who've had a nearly a 100 years lead. Once again its about getting the market to move not replacing it over night. Someones gotta do it.
And your point about vacations, yes people take their cars on vacation. I don't know about you but I go on vacation only a couple times a year not every fortnight. There are super charger stations at all the main roads, if you want to go to remote places well then you will need a second car. If you can afford a tesla, its likely you have a second car. In terms of environmental impact, you're driving to work and home about 90% of the time and that's hardly gonna put a dent on your battery when you consider you have it charging while you sleep just like an iPhone.
Like the first iPhone, data plans were expensive, 2G was slow, resolution was bad. And people like yourself wrote it off when it launched for such small inconveniences. hell people even complain it had no real keypad too. Look at the market now and those android phones with keypads are history.
----------
I agree, its very clear the big car manufactures are not trying very hard. I love BMW and have M3 at home but their i3 is just laughable. Toyota and Mercedes is working with Tesla, but they just wedged the AC motors into an existing car without even trying to make the body suitable for an EV. Unsurprisingly no one even heard Toyota released a Tesla powered Rav4.
----------
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...el-s-coast-to-coast-drive-in-less-than-a-week
crossed country, safe, solar powered recharging. Does this meet the mark? =)
Sheesh, give it time man. Ridiculous really. Even brand new spanking airlines don't offer multiple routes connecting various destinations - it takes a few years.
Sheesh, give it time man. Ridiculous really. Even brand new spanking airlines don't offer multiple routes connecting various destinations - it takes a few years.
No, what is ridiculous is the amount of time you're supposed to spend at one of these charging stations. 20 minutes for a 50% charge. The people arguing for this company keep ignoring that. It's unrealistic. It's ridiculous, really. HOW LONG for a 100% charge? I don't care how many charging stations there are in the future, if they can't overcome that charging time, the platform is a JOKE. NO ONE but an electric fanatic would wait that long to refuel. Oh wait. Fanatics. Apple. Maybe it IS a match made in heaven, after all.
So by your definition this:
http://www.opko.com/diagnostics/molecular-diagnostics-platform/
is not biotech because it is a diagnostic?
And this:
http://www.opko.com/diagnostics/point-of-care-diagnostics-platform/
is biometrics?
Right ... not always so black and white. When biometrics are used to indicate a stated urgent condition as this article says such as an potential heart attack, it is a diagnostic. FDA requires a level of proven accuracy due to the potential harm of unnecessary treatment. My point regarding Apple is that this is not its core business and as good as they are, they are in no unique position to develop these technologies.